Send us a link
A study of millions of life science papers revealed that manuscripts with women in key authorship roles spent longer between submission and acceptance.
The pandemic showed the benefits of a system based around reviewing preprints. Why was eLife the only journal to respond, asks Damian Pattinson.
Some scientists say many detections are most likely error, with one high-profile study called a ‘joke’.
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine A researcher accused of falsifying research in work funded by the National Institutes of Health has cost Northwestern University $2.3 million.
Open access has expanded research visibility, but rising information overload, fragile trust, and uneven credibility signals show that access alone isn’t enough. The next chapter must focus on transparency and trust.
"Enshittification" isn’t just confined to the online world. In fact, it’s now visible in academic publishing and occurs in five stages. The same forces that hollow out digital platforms are shaping how a lot of research is produced, reviewed and published.
The current relationship between researchers, funders and commercial publishers has created a “drain” – depriving the research system of money, time, trust and control.
New study reinforces worries about “mass production of junk” by unscrupulous scholars aiming to pad their CVs
Author-paid publication fees, often associated with so-called “gold” open access journals, lead to the corruption of science by incentivizing the publication of low-quality research and exacerbate inequalities between institutions that are prestigious and well-funded and those that are less so. The authors recommend a total abandonment of author-paid publication fees for academic research, the publication of which is typically a public good yet serves to enrich publishers while degrading research outputs.
Citations are not only driven by prestige but are strongly affected by social networks and intellectual proximity. Recognizing the diverse factors influencing citations is critical for a fairer reward system of science.
For decades, researchers with English as an additional language have faced systemic disadvantages in publishing. AI writing tools promise relief, yet, they also bring new risks into science.
What does Open Access promise and what does it cost? How can the crucial importance of open infrastructures be embedded as a collective core task? What could a new concept for financing Diamond Open Access look like? At the Open Access Days 2025, these and other questions were answered in lectures and workshops.
Nearly three years after ChatGPT's debut, generative AI continues to reshape scholarly publishing. While workflows are becoming more efficient, the long-term impact on research creation and evaluation remains uncertain.
Large language models could help reduce backlog of study proposals, but critics are wary of entrusting ethics to machines.
Report highlights promise, questions about detectors of AI-generated text.
In the 3rd installment of career-focused articles, scientists who completed books as experienced researchers reflect on how their networks paved the way for—and grew during—the publishing process.
In the 2nd installment of 3 career-focused articles, scientists contemplate why a book project was the perfect addition to the dynamic middle stage of their professional journeys.
