Learned Publishing最新文献

This extensive literature review is not a stand-alone paper, as it was conducted to help set the scene for the third and current stage of the Harbinger of Change project (H-3), which is focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on early career researchers (ECRs). Its purpose is to inform the design, scope and question-forming of the ongoing interview project (2024–). The overarching aim of the review is to establish what we know of the already extant and/or predicted opportunities and challenges that AI-driven technologies present to researchers, in general, and the cohort of junior researchers among them, in particular. It was found that very little empirical evidence exists of what is happening to ECRs on the ground, and that tends to be drowned in a sea of forecasts and prognostications. However, down the road there are clear benefits accruing to ECRs and, arguably, the most appealing for novice researchers must be the benefits of enhancing their productivity, the key to all scholarly rewards, inclusive of career advancement.

Studies of early career researchers need to define and operationalize what qualifies as an early career researcher. Regrettably, consensus on this matter remains elusive, leading to the emergence of diverse approaches in the literature. This study provides an overview of the various ways this concept has been defined and operationalized in previous studies. Four publication-based approaches are identified and tested with the purpose of exploring the possible consequences arising from different publication-based definitions for early career researchers. The four proxies for defining an early career researcher are tested using two samples of authors having published in the fields of library and information science (LIS) and economics. The share of early career researchers seems to be decreasing over time although it depends on the field and definition. The four approaches return quite different results. In LIS, the four different definitions are highly correlated and therefore depict similar pictures over time. This is not the case in Economics, indicating that the choice of approach when defining an early career researcher may have an impact on the results of the analysis in this field. Defining early career researchers through proxies may influence the outcomes of the study, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful consideration when formulating the definition.

This article explores the spillover effects of economic sanctions against Russia on research in neighbouring countries. The assumption of the paper is that such effects should take place given the high level of regional integration in the post-Soviet area. The study uses bibliometric data retrieved from the Web of Science for analysis; more specifically, the data on publications during 2019, 2021 and 2023 from each of the four countries of interest – Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics and graphs. The results clearly point to the potential presence of negative externalities of economic sanctions on research systems of neighbouring countries not directly involved in the war. The paper discusses implications of the effects and recommendations, which can be used by policy makers to alleviate the effects on the neighbouring countries and by scholars to further investigate the phenomenon.

The field of nursing has consistently upheld a strong sense of ethical awareness, which can be assumed to be reflected in the performance of nursing research. Adhering to sound research principles involves prioritizing research integrity. This entails being clear and open in detailing the methods used, allowing others to have confidence in both the methods and the resulting outcomes. This methodological review aimed to provide an overview of how statistical software programs have been reported in nursing studies. We screened articles published in the year 2023 in the five top-ranking and the five bottom-ranking nursing journals and found 311 that were eligible for this review; that is, quantitative/mixed-methods/meta-analyses. The most commonly used statistical software programs in these articles was IBM SPSS Statistics, followed by R. However, one out of 10 studies did not report the software used. Among those that reported the software, the software version was not always reported. Our findings suggest that there is insufficient reporting on the statistical software used for analysing quantitative data in nursing journal publications. From a perspective of maintaining research integrity, this presents an issue, as it jeopardizes transparency, sincerity, and, consequently, the ability to replicate methods and have confidence in the results.

Comparing research performance across distinct subject domains is not recommended unless proper treatments are applied to normalize the domain-specific characteristics. Except for limited research aimed at exploring the field-dependent behaviours of specific research performance indicators, it is difficult to find comprehensive research examining both conventional and altmetric indicators for their influence on journals, articles, and authors in distinct subject domains. This research used Scopus and PlumX as sources to collect conventional and altmetric data, respectively. In addition to descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test, cluster plots, and correlation analysis were employed for data analysis. The results reveal that all three levels of indicators behave in notably different ways in Medicine compared with that of the Physical and Social Sciences. Most indicators in all three levels attain higher maximum and average values in Medicine. For instance, the maximum values for most indicators, except for citations and documents, are significantly higher in Medicine than in the Physical and Social Sciences. However, the citations and productivity of Physical Sciences journals surpass the two in other domains. SNIP deviates lightly across subject domains compared with that of other journal-level indicators. Further, citations do not have a large influence on SNIP and SJR as they do Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. All article-level indicators show significant differences between Medicine and the Physical Sciences. Between the Physical and Social Sciences, all indicators except page count show significant differences. Further, article-level indicators in the Social Sciences behave in nearly the same way as in the Physical Sciences. Citation counts positively influence captures. In addition, Medicine authors are likely to make more impact and be more productive in their field than authors in other fields. Collaboration was also found to improve both the productivity of authors and the impact of their research, irrespective of the domain they work in. These findings are important to authors, research evaluators, and publishers from different viewpoints. Discouraging performance comparisons based on raw indicator values can protect researchers from inaccurate assessments, enabling them to fully realize their potential for conducting cutting-edge research. Finally, this research indicates different directions along which this area of research can be extended.

This paper comes from the third stage (H-3) of the long-running Harbingers of Change project (2015), which has investigated the scholarly communication beliefs and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) for a decade. The first stage (H-1) focussed on generational (Millennial) change; the second (H-2) on the impact of COVID; and, currently, the third stage (H-3) on AI and its impact. While each stage has a particular focus all stages also asked questions about wider scholarly communications. This paper re-examines an important finding found in H-1 and backed by H-2, which was that ECRs thought article processing charges were a major barrier to publishing open access (OA). Since then, OA has become more complex with more models available and a huge body of OA journals to navigate, so it is time to return to the topic. Data were obtained from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal and Spain about national guidelines and practices with 62 ECRs interviewed in-depth. The findings indicate that ECRs are encountering challenges, or dilemmas in OA publishing. More precisely, they struggle with issues surrounding cost perceptions and understanding within the intricate academic publishing environment.

This study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. Four hundred articles were coded for the inclusion of data availability statements, conflict of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, DOI, ORCID, and continuous publishing. Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review. These findings reveal reasonably strong implementation of secondary open science measures (e.g., DOI, ORCID, conflict of interest and funding source disclosure) among the sample, but weaker implementation of primary measures (e.g., open data, open materials, replication studies and open peer review). The implications of these findings are considered and suggestions are made to bolster the adoption of open science measures among Ibero-American scientific journals.

This study sets out to detail the deceptive practice of including stock characters in the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers. Stock characters are defined by the author as those that currently (2023) appear 20 or more times on these editorial boards. Predatory publishers are in turn defined by the author as open access publishers in violation of three or more out of eight egregiously ‘fatal’ criteria such as identity theft and token (or no) peer review. Stock characters (and stolen academic names and affiliations in general) are included in editorial boards to give them an unwarranted appearance of quality and excellence. Ninety-six of these stock characters were identified, with their numbers of board memberships ranging from 20 to 503 in the current year (2023). Some were cases of total identity theft, some partial identity theft, and some willing compliance. Academics in the latter category could also have records of publications with the predatory publishers in question. Universities typically warn staff and postgraduate students about the dangers of engaging with predatory publishers, but they can be unresponsive or otherwise negative when alerted to instances of such engagements involving their staff.