Send us a link
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.
Nature's recent efforts to redefine the ethical responsibilities of scientists leave a lot to be desired.
Editormetrics analyses the role of editors of academic journals and their impact on the scientific publication system - but open, structured and machine-readable data remains rare.
The OSTP Nelson Memo has caused quite a stir in scholarly communication circles. How will academia handle the zero embargo?
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and peer review.
Reference lists for more than 60 million journal studies in Crossref are now free to view and reuse.
They look like scientific papers. But they're distorting and killing science.
UC Berkeley scientists and students looked at current artificial intelligence translation systems and found that, though flawed, they have become good enough for researchers to broadly translate their work into other languages, at least the languages of the coauthors and the country in which the research was conducted. One problem: how to get permissions to translate and share, and where will these translations live online.
Between 2018 and 2020 China published 23.4% of the world's scientific papers, eclipsing the US.
This study indicates that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.
Retraction Watch has witnessed a retraction boom since its founding 12 years ago. But the scientific community must do much more.
