Send us a link
Science is international, but scientific publishing is dominated by English-language publications. This disproportionately benefits native or fluent English speakers. Steps to address the imbalance this creates are taken, and new technology may help.
Kaitlin Thaney argues the current momentum building for “no pays” academic publishing models and establishing the “reasonable costs” of publication, present opportunities to rebalance the inequities, costs, and power dynamics initially bred by the push towards Open Access “at any cost” over the past two decades.
For scientists submitting their papers to journals, there’s an all-too-familiar drill: spend hours formatting the paper to meet the journal’s guidelines; if the paper is rejected, sink more time into reformatting it for another journal; repeat. Now an analysis has put a price tag on all that busy work.
From a CUP Announcement: The rules are set out in the first AI ethics policy from Cambridge University Press and apply to research papers, books and other scholarly works. They include a ban on AI being treated as an 'author' of academic papers and books we publish.
EU countries want to ensure the scientific publishing industry is fair and sustainable as it moves towards open access models, according to the first draft of council conclusions seen by Science|Business.
Studies involving hundreds, even thousands, of scientists are on the rise, but how do such large groups coordinate their work?
Two years ago, this journal pledged to report on the diversity of sources in our journalistic content. The first results are now in.
Conversational AI is a game-changer for science. Here's how to respond.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
At least four articles credit the AI tool as a co-author, as publishers scramble to regulate its use.
Preceding all others, a peer-reviewed paper titled 'Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?' was recently published by Siobhan O'Connor, Senior Lecturer at the School of Health Sciences and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Western University.
An artificially intelligent first author presents many ethical questions—and could upend the publishing process.
The proportion of publications that send a field in a new direction has plummeted over the last half-century.
This study tested if paying to publish open access in a subscriptionbased journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles and found that paying for access does confer a citation advantage.
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Open Access (OA) emerged as an important transition in scholarly publishing worldwide during the past two decades. The industry is moving towards article processing charges (APC) based OA as the more profitable business model. Research publishing will be closed to those who cannot make an institution or project money payment. This article discusses whether APC is the best way to promote OA.
Reporting on their findings from qualitative research project focused PhD students across China, Hugo Horta and Huan Li explore how a culture of publication has become central to doctoral study and…
The current scholarly publishing system is detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge and needs a radical shift. There have already been many attempts and partial successes to drive a new shift in scholarly publishing. Many of them should be further developed and generalised.
Some questionable practices show the publisher is greenwashing.
All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.
This article analyzes changes in the speed of publication of research articles over the last ten years.
Is there an entrenched stasis in scholarly communication in which the core elements of the system have not been much moved by the revolutions happening around us?
The authors critically discuss their experience as guest editors for a Frontiers journal. They aim to foster open scholarly debate about Frontiers publishing practices, triggered by Frontiers hindering such debate on their own pages.
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish.
The way that the global north pays for publishing hampers public, scholar-led efforts in Latin America.
