Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
The large language models, or LLMs, that underlie generative AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, have an ethical challenge in how they parasitize freely available data.
The origin of the phrase “publish or perish” has been intriguing since this question was first raised by Eugene Garfield in 1996. Vladimir Moskovkinl talks about the evolution of the meaning of this phrase and shows the earliest use known at this point.
It is estimated that all journals, irrespective of discipline, experience a steeply rising number of fake paper submissions. Currently, the rate is about 2 percent. That may sound small. But, given the large and growing amount of scholarly publications it means that a lot of fake papers are published. Each of these can seriously damage patients, society or nature when applied in practice.
The retraction of academic papers often functions as an indictment against a researcher’s reputation. Tim Kersjes argues that for retractions to function as an effective corrective to the scholarly record, they need shed this punitive reputation.
The authors describe how by chance they learned how some actors have added extra references, invisible in the text but present in the articles’ metadata, when those unscrupulous actors submitted the articles to scientific databases.
Each country has its own unique role to play in promoting greater linguistic diversity in scientific communication.
An investigation by Undark and Retraction Watch finds that some journals’ special issue are being targeted by academic paper mills.
Chapters in books are, thanks to digital open access, once again rivalling journal articles in their visibility to academic communities, their usefulness as teaching resources and in their ability to tackle innovative and state of-the-art topics.