Learned Publishing最新文献

The modern peer review process relies on review by independent experts; however, it is threatened by time constraints and increasing review demands placed on a limited number of involved individuals. To expand the pool of reviewers in paediatric urology, a joint effort was undertaken by the Journal of Urology and Journal of Paediatric Urology via a mentorship program occurring at the 2022 Paediatric Urology Fall Congress. The objective was to increase participants' knowledge and comfort with the review process. Our experience could serve as a pilot for other academic groups looking to expand their peer review pool. Overall, 39 individuals attended the program. An increase in comfort with performing a journal review was noted by 14/23 respondents (61%), with an average increase of 1.2 points on a 10-point Likert scale. The average rating of satisfaction with the journal review program on a 10-point scale was 9.7, with 77% (23/30) rating the program 10/10. When asked for specific elements of the program that participants particularly liked, the most common responses were networking with senior mentors in a small group setting and the panel discussion led by editors describing specifics of what they are looking for in a review. Previous programs with goals similar to ours have required more long-term commitment from both mentors and mentees in developing their skills as peer reviewers. Our program benefited from a short-term commitment at a large national conference. Long term results will need to be collected moving forward. However, initial feedback was positive and participants describe increased comfort and knowledge in the review process. Our program evaluation was limited by lack of validated surveys and a lack of longitudinal data on future completion of reviews. This pilot program inspired enthusiasm and increased interest in the peer review process among young paediatric urologists. This program could serve as a model for improving recruitment of peer reviewers and could impact reviewer quality.

A scientific paper may be retracted due to serious errors, misconduct, or fraud, including plagiarism, duplication, or fabrication, invalid authorship, copyright infringement, or the lack of ethical approvals (Steen, Casadevall, and Fang 2013; Bornemann-Cimenti, Szilagyi, and Sandner-Kiesling 2016; Dal-Ré and Ayuso 2019; Xie, Wang, and Kong 2021; Candal-Pedreira, Pérez-Ríos, and Ruano-Ravina 2022). Historically, about 20% of retracted papers involve collaborative research (Zhang, Abraham, and Fu 2020), affecting a network of individuals. Recently, there has been an increase in retractions linked to paper mills, which are paid services providing data, analyses, or even an entire paper, and whose use is unethical in scientific publishing if those services are undeclared (Rivera and Teixeira da Silva 2021; Day 2022; Pérez-Neri, Pineda, and Sandoval 2022; Santos-d'Amorim et al. 2024; Teixeira da Silva et al. 2024). These papers are retractable due to the undeclared use of such services and the potential inclusion of fake or fabricated data.

The number of retractions has amplified considerably from 38 in 2000 to over 2300 in 2020 (Oransky et al. 2021), reaching a new record in 2023 with over 10,000 articles retracted (Van Noorden 2023). Figure 1 displays the steady increase of publications labelled as retracted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) databases over the past 30 years. One reason why more literature is not retracted are legal threats to publishers by authors (Sox and Rennie 2006; Oransky 2022). Moreover, a negative stigma and the punitive nature of retractions (Teixeira da Silva and Al-Khatib 2021; Xu and Hu 2024), due to a name-and-shame style culture (Hu and Xu 2023), may stifle academics' desire to correct the literature (Vuong 2020) because retractions can be career-altering or career-terminating events (Mongeon and Larivière 2016; Hu and Xu 2020; Lin 2024). Opinion papers might also be retracted, but if personal or political biases are at play, then such retractions may form part of ‘cancel culture’ in academia (Teixeira da Silva 2021).

There is no clear or standard response to this question (Teixeira da Silva 2020), possibly explaining why retracted papers continue to be cited, even though they should theoretically not be (Hansson 2023). However, an answer may lie in the reason why a paper was retracted rather than why it was corrected (Fanelli, Ioannidis, and Goodman 2018). Thus, if a retraction is due to misconduct, then it should not be cited (Neale et al. 2007; Neale, Dailey, and Abrams 2010). The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises tha

The article analyses the citation rules of 270 scholarly journals indexed in the Scopus database to describe editorial politics in Czech and Lithuanian journals as representatives of local publishing markets. The quantitative analysis identified standard practices in in-text referencing, citation styles, using examples of references as guides for authors, and using DOI. We also statistically tested differences among journals according to countries, thematic focus, publishers, Open Access policies and publishing languages. Most (54.1%) journals did not name any citation style; this approach was the most common in life sciences and agricultural and natural sciences. The APA was the most commonly named citation style, mainly used by journals in the social sciences. The scientific field was the most vital determinant of citation rules—citation styles and in-text referencing. 84.4% of journals used examples of references as a main specification of citation style. We also found some country specifics, such as using ISO 690 and footnotes in the Czech Republic, and strong support of APA and requesting DOI in Lithuania. We drew attention to the challenges and disadvantages of citation practices that complicate authors' work, submission of articles, errors in citation records and automated linking of documents via references.

The university book plays a crucial role in disseminating research and teaching, but its usage has declined due to a preference for journal articles and digital materials. This article examines how Spanish university presses are employing Print-on-Demand (POD) to adapt to changes in the publishing market, enhancing flexibility, reducing costs and optimising the production of monographs and academic books. POD enables publishers to print copies based on actual demand, minimising the risk of overproduction and storage costs. This model has transformed the publishing supply chain, offering efficient solutions for managing the lifecycle of books, from their launch to potential delisting. University presses are also using innovations in digital printing to respond swiftly to fluctuations in the academic market. This study adopts a qualitative approach to examine how POD affects scholarly publishers' efficiency, longevity and production strategies, proposing that this technology is crucial for the future sustainability and competitiveness of the sector. The flexibility of POD is vital in environments where demand is unpredictable, and scholarly publishers must manage financial resources carefully.

Publishing research in scholarly journals takes up much time and energy for many academics, and the early career phase may be particularly challenging, as researchers navigate the processes and politics of academic publishing for the first time. We previously explored these challenges as early-career researchers in a collaborative autoethnographic study in 2018. Now, 6 years later, we have once again reflected on our shared and divergent experiences, this time from our positions as mid-career researchers, socialised into the world of scholarly publishing and with longer histories of success and failure in scholarly publication. Our critical discussions revealed a continued commitment to publishing work in high-impact journals, but also tensions in engaging with biased systems, and systemic resistance to challenging inequalities in academic publishing. Our motives for publishing are still influenced by institutional expectations, but are increasingly shaped by a desire to extend the impact of our work to individuals and communities as our knowledge mobilisation endeavours come to fruition, and new external partnerships are formed. This article is responsive to our ongoing efforts to support the next generation of novice researchers in their own publishing journeys, while also critically reflecting on tensions and opportunities encountered when expanding our publication mentoring skillset.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, the scholarly community faces a growing question: Are lengthy articles still the best way to communicate research? Recently, Pividori (2024) highlighted the ability of AI tools to generate large volumes of text quickly, prompting reflection on whether long articles truly advance scientific progress. As we move further into the AI era, should we instead focus on brevity and clarity?

This article is an opinion piece that reflects on the evolving challenges in academic publishing, particularly in the context of the increasing role of AI tools like LLMs. We aim to provoke thought and inspire action towards adopting concise and impactful scientific reporting in response to the growing issue of information overload in the research community. This piece deliberately reflects on the ethical, environmental, and academic implications of publishing in the AI era. It does not claim to present empirical findings but rather serves as a reaction to current developments and an argument for rethinking traditional publishing practices in favour of clarity, efficiency, and sustainability.

The current scientific information landscape is overwhelming. Jinha (2010) estimated that since the 17th century, over 50 million scientific papers have been published, with more than 2.5 million new papers added annually. This flood of content makes it nearly impossible for researchers to stay fully informed, even within their fields. Lengthy papers, often filled with excessive detail, contribute to this overload, demanding more time and cognitive resources from readers.

In today's fast-paced research environment, efficiency and clarity are critical. Adopting a ‘small is sexy’ approach, inspired by Hill's TED talk ‘Less Stuff, More Happiness’ (Hill 2011), could improve the quality of academic writing. Reducing verbosity allows more focused, impactful research findings to shine without being buried under unnecessary information. This shift can lead to better comprehension and faster dissemination of critical insights.

Some may counter our argument, claiming that detailed methodologies and large datasets are essential for reproducibility and understanding. While this is true, balancing necessary detail with conciseness is possible. One solution is to include Supporting Information or external repositories for exhaustive datasets and methodological specifics. By placing such information in accessible repositories like Zenodo or Dryad, researchers can ensure the integrity of their work without overloading the main text.

This approach has multiple benefits. It simplifies reading, enhances transparency, and promotes open science. Researchers can focus on interpreting results and discussing their significance rather than getting bogged down in exhaustive descriptions. It also facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration, making research more accessible

Under the pressure of English as the lingua franca for research publication, local journals have changed their language policies for survival. While some discontinued their local-language editions and became English journals, others resorted to bilingual publishing through translation, which may enable them to be integrated into the international community without losing their cultural identity. So far, the impact of bilingual publishing on international visibility has rarely been explored, though relevant knowledge is limited. This study aims to explore whether the bilingual publishing policy adopted by four Spain-based journals increases their international authorship, as is reflected in the proportion of foreign contributions and the geographical distribution of foreign contributing countries. To address this issue, a control-group interrupted time series design was implemented, assigning the four journals to the experimental group and a homogeneous journal to the comparison group. Within-group and between-group evidence indicates that Spain-based journals' shift to bilingual publishing increases the proportion of international contributions and widens the geographical distribution of contributing countries. The findings are discussed against the current literature and arguments are initiated as to whether it is necessary to continue with the bilingual publishing policy if international authorship reduces the publication chances of local authors.

My background in scholarly publishing and peer review brought me to the United States to teach Scholarly Communication at the School of Information Sciences of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Offering a course dedicated to the scholarly communication process is a fairly new endeavour for iSchools. In 2022, I was entrusted with a Scholarly Communication course composed of masters students in the Library & Information Science and the PhD in Information Sciences programs. The Scholarly Communication course was created by Prof. Dr. Maria Bonn, who is one of the authors of The Scholarly Communication Notebook (https://oercommons.org/hubs/SCN), ‘an active, inclusive, empowered community of practice for teaching scholarly communication to emerging librarians’. As Professor Bonn used to do with her library science students at the University of Illinois (Bonn 2014), in one of the first class sessions the students and I spent some time browsing job advertisements for Scholarly Communication librarians published on the ALA Job List (https://joblist.ala.org/).

In these job advertisements posted from 2006 to 2014, we found positions titled ‘Scholarly Communications Librarian’, or others with a more specific focus such as ‘Copyright Librarian’, ‘Data Librarian’, or ‘Open Access and Intellectual Property Librarian’, and analysed the prevalence of scholarly communications terms, concepts, and activities, as identified by Finlay et al. (2015, 21), namely ‘instruction; digital products; outreach and liaison work; publishing; repositories; copyright, policy, and licensing; preservation; metadata, standards, and data management; and open access’. My students and I were particularly intrigued by the absence of peer review as one of the concepts requested of a scholarly communication position, since peer review is clearly represented in the schematic of the scholarly communication cycle created by the Association of College and Research Libraries (Figure 1, ACRL).

Furthermore, the definition of scholarly communication librarianship of the ACRL includes the evaluation of scholarly work in peer-reviewed. journals: ‘the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use. The system includes both formal means of communication, such as publication in peer-reviewed journals, and informal channels, such as electronic listservs’ (ACRL 2003). In addition, as Meadows (1998, preface) says ‘Communication lies at the heart of research. It is as vital for research as the actual investigation itself, for research cannot properly claim that name until it has been scrutinized and accepted by colleagues’. This statement highlights that peer review is a fundamental aspect of the communication of research in scholarly publishing. Thus, I asked my students: Why is peer review not listed