Learned Publishing

The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs) and their work life and scholarly communications began by studying generational—Millennial—change (H‐1), then moved to pandemic change (H‐2) and is now investigating another change agent—artificial intelligence (AI). This paper from the study constitutes a deep dive into the peer review attitudes and practices of 91 international ECRs from all disciplines. Depth interviews were the main means by which data was collected, and questions covered ECRs as reviewers, authors and readers, and are described in their own words. Main findings are: (1) ECRs proved to be a highly experienced in peer review; (2) There is more trust in peer review than distrust in it, but there are concerns; (3) Peer review is something that arts and humanities ECRs are unfamiliar with or much concerned about; (4) A sizeable majority of ECRs thought peer review could be improved, with anonymity/double‐blind reviewing topping the list; (5) The majority view was that AI will have an impact on peer review and that it would be beneficial; (6) little has changed since the last Harbingers study, except for AI, which is seen to be transformative. We believe that few studies have drilled down so deeply and widely in respect to ECRs.

The evolution of data journals and the increase in data papers call for associated peer review, which is intricately linked yet distinct from traditional scientific paper review. This study investigates the data paper review guidelines of 22 scholarly journals that publish data papers and analyses 131 data papers' review reports from the journal Data. Peer review is an essential part of scholarly publishing. Although the 22 data journals employ disparate review models, their review purposes and requirements exhibit similarities. Journal guidelines provide authors and reviewers with comprehensive references for reviewing, which cover the entire life cycle of data. Reviewer attitudes predominantly encompass Suggestion, Inquiry, Criticism and Compliment during the specific review process, focusing on 18 key targets including manuscript writing, diagram presentation, data process and analysis, references and review and so forth. In addition, objective statements and other general opinions are also identified. The findings show the distinctive characteristics of data publication assessment and summarise the main concerns of journals and reviewers regarding the evaluation of data papers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

• Meta-analyses are currently proliferating at an astounding pace in the literature and questions have been raised about their quality. • The widely used PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 checklists attempt to ensure the quality of meta-analyses, but they leave crucial questions unanswered. • There is at present still considerable uncertainty about how to deal effectively with the daunting problem of publication bias in the literature. • Since tens of thousands of meta-analyses have been published in the past, reviewers of current manuscripts need to know which published meta-analyses can be cited reliably. • Efforts should be made to improve methods to detect and handle publication bias, along with efforts to prevent misleading conclusions by encouraging the publication and later citation of research based on methodological rigour rather than the nature or impact of the findings.

Little consistency exists in how individuals enter scholarly publishing, let alone advance their careers. More transparency and documentation can help increase diversity in an industry that wrestles with its privilege. In this article, we report on a project initiated by three publishing industry associations to aggregate, normalise, and analyse public job postings and internal position descriptions in scholarly publishing. After gathering more than 1000 unique descriptions, a group of knowledgeable volunteers qualitatively coded them. Researchers from the University of Michigan checked for data consistency and analysed the job description corpus. Preliminary visualisations highlight the skills that suit potential applicants for various publishing positions and the skills that are most important to build for advancement. The findings can inform the development of products to make publishing a more equitable industry, such as interactive tools to match individuals with types of publishing jobs, well‐formed template positions, and training programs that address skills gaps.

Open repositories were created to enhance access and visibility of scholarly publications, driven by open science ideals emphasising transparency and accessibility. However, they lack mechanisms to update the status of corrected or retracted publications, posing a threat to the integrity of the scholarly record. To explore the scope of the problem, a manually verified corpus was examined: we extracted all the entries in the Crossref × Retraction Watch database for which the publication date of the corrected or retracted document ranged from 2013 to 2023. This corresponded to 24,430 entries with a DOI, which we use to query Unpaywall and identify their possible indexing in HAL, an open repository (second largest institutional repository worldwide). In most cases (91%), HAL does not mention corrections. While the study needs broader scope, it highlights the necessity of improving the role of open repositories in correction processes with better curation practices. We discuss how harvesting operations and the interoperability of platforms can maintain the integrity of the entire scholarly record. Not only will the open repositories avoid damaging its reliability through ambiguous reporting, but on the contrary, they will also strengthen it.

This study aims to evaluate the influence of the China Sci‐Tech Journal Excellence Action Plan (CJEAP) on the development of Chinese science and technology (sci‐tech) journals. The performance of bibliometric indicators of these journals before and after the implementation of this plan is examined. In particular, a discipline richness algorithm is employed to evaluate whether and how the funding plan affected the disciplinal coverage of publications. The results show that the influence of CJEAP funding in sci‐tech journals published in China is not evenly distributed. Highly funded journals appear to have expanded both the range of research areas and disciplines, and the article volume, while poorly funded journals mainly focus on attracting manuscripts with higher scientific impact but display less expanded disciplinal range. New journals funded by CJEAP are characterised with high scientific levels focusing on highly sophisticated fields, but initially featuring a relatively small article volume. Notably, a positive relationship exists between the international collaboration rate and citation ranking score, and thus the expansion of article volume with manuscripts mainly from Chinese scholars may not be conducive for enhancing the international influence of journals published in China. In summary, our results indicate that CJEAP funding has elicited powerful influence in promoting sci‐tech journals published in China, suggesting continuous funding support should be both necessary and efficient for further promoting the development of sci‐tech journals published in China.

In this paper, we clarify the notions of plagiarism and self‐plagiarism and show that a rather straightforward observation about these notions has important implications for the admissibility of recycling research outputs. The key point is that contextual variation must be taken into account in normative assessments of recycling research outputs, and we illustrate this with some examples. In particular, we apply the analysis in order to dissolve a disagreement about the proper handling of submissions to conferences. Some researchers are comfortable with sending the same contribution to several conferences, while others find that unacceptable and a clear deviation from good research practise. We take a closer look at the arguments regarding whether it is acceptable or not to make the same conference contribution more than once, including the argument that submitting the same contribution more than once would amount to self‐plagiarism. We argue that contextual variation must be taken into account, in accordance with our previous analysis, and conclude that whether or not a duplication of a conference contribution deviates from good research practise depends on what significance is ascribed to it in the specific case. We conclude with some practical recommendations, emphasising for example, the importance of being explicit and clear on this point, and encourage conference organisers to provide opportunities to specify relevant facts in the submission.

There are ample reasons why papers might get rejected by peer‐reviewed journals, and the experience can be, especially for those who have had little experience, sobering. When papers get rejected a number of times, that may signal that there are problems with the paper (e.g., weak methodology or lack of robust analyses), that it is insufficiently developed, is poorly written, or that it is too topic‐specific and needs to find an appropriate niche journal. In the case of a single or multiple rejections, whenever there is feedback from a journal, as well as reasons for rejection, this provides a useful signal for improving the paper before it is resubmitted to another journal. This article examines literature related to the rejection of papers in academic journals, encompassing the opinions and experiences offered by authors, as well as advice suggested by editors, allowing readers and authors who experience rejections to reflect on the possible reasons that may have led to that outcome. Many papers related to this topic were published as editorials or opinions, offering advice on how to improve aspects of a submitted paper in order to increase its chances of acceptance.

Presents the results of a study of the impact of artificial intelligence on early career researchers (ECRs). An important group to study because their millennial mindset may render them especially open to AI. We provide empirical data and a validity check of the numerous publications providing forecasts and prognostications. This interview‐based study—part of the Harbingers project on ECRs—covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all fields and seven countries using both qualitative and quantitative data to view the AI experience, engagement, utility, attitudes and representativeness of ECRs. We find that: (1) ECRs exhibit mostly limited or moderate levels of experience; (2) in regard to engagement and usage there is a divide with some ECRs exhibiting little or none and others enthusiastically using AI; (3) ECRs do not think they are unrepresentative when compared to their colleagues; (4) ECRs who score highly on these measures tend to be computer scientists, but not exclusively so; (5) the main concerns regarding AI were around authenticity, especially plagiarism; (6) a major attraction of AI is the automation of ‘wordsmithing’; the process and technique of composition and writing.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the situation whereby content generated by the large language model ChatGPT is appearing in peer‐reviewed papers in journals by recognized publishers. The paper demonstrates how to identify sections that indicate that a text fragment was generated, that is, entirely created, by ChatGPT. To prepare an illustrative compilation of papers that appear in journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases and possessing Impact Factor and CiteScore indicators, the SPAR4SLR method was used, which is mainly applied in systematic literature reviews. Three main findings are presented: in highly regarded premier journals, articles appear that bear the hallmarks of the content generated by AI large language models, whose use was not declared by the authors (1); many of these identified papers are already receiving citations from other scientific works, also placed in journals found in scientific databases (2); and, most of the identified papers belong to the disciplines of medicine and computer science, but there are also articles that belong to disciplines such as environmental science, engineering, sociology, education, economics and management (3). This paper aims to continue and add to the recently initiated discussion on the use of large language models like ChatGPT in the creation of scholarly works.

Key points LLM has attained generative capabilities similar to human discourse and can effectively summarize documents and extract information from texts. The development of R.A.G. systems will soon make these systems capable to browse databases such as MEDLINE and extract knowledge, creating summaries of the literature. These summaries may soon reach a point where they are equivalent to current reviews of the literature, possibly making them irrelevant. The availability of automated summaries of the literature may raise the bar of what is still worth publishing. Literature reviews may have to capitalize on human imagination, creativity and abstraction capabilities to survive the A.I. revolution.

Key points cOAlition S has been one of the main drivers of OA, however, some of the preeminent OA models that have emerged like APCs and Read and Publish deals are flawed. Publishers have struggled to define their key value in the digital age and this has contributed to the weaknesses found in OA models. Publishers should recognize their essential value in the generation of academic knowledge and forefront this in decision‐making to ensure a sustainable future.

Our study investigates the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically generative AI technologies (GAI), on the linguistics of academic article titles. Triggered by suspicious of increased usage of specific verbs in article titles, this research hypothesizes that GAI tools may be influencing the language of scientific communication. To explore this hypothesis, we conducted a comprehensive analysis on the frequency and distribution of 15 selected verbs in research article titles, using data extracted from the SCOPUS database spanning 2015 to 2024. The methodology integrates qualitative observations with a bibliometric approach, examining the presence and trends of these verbs across multiple scientific disciplines. The findings reveal a marked increase in these verbs, pointing towards AI's involvement in title generation. We also explore document characteristics, such as disciplinary backgrounds and publication contexts, to gauge AI's impact on academic writing. Furthermore, the research attempts to quantify the extent of AI‐assisted title generation. Despite several limitations, this investigation paves the way for future studies to broaden the linguistic and database scope. It underscores the need for establishing AI usage standards in academic publishing, contributing valuable insights into the ongoing dialogue about AI's integration into academic writing.