Siamo la prima casa editrice nazionale 🇮🇹 interamente dedicata alla pubblicazione accademica in modalità #OpenAccess. Sosteniamo la condivisione dei risultati della ricerca medica e scientifica senza costi per i lettori.
Scopri le nostre riviste su https://www.pagepress.org/site/catalog, tutte ospitate su piattaforma OJS (prodotto OpenSource di PKP Public Knowledge Project)
Promuoviamo insieme la conoscenza aperta e accessibile a tutti
Equinox is making it easier for me to choose to which journal I want to submit my next paper: "Equinox does not accept manuscripts that have already been submitted to preprint repositories, such as SSRN. However, an author may deposit their accepted postprint manuscript in their Institutional Repository (only), with due acknowledgement to Equinox Publishing and an embargo period of 24 months." #OpenScience#AcademicChatter#AcademicPublishing
• Plagiarism in the article is less than 20%, excluding references.
• The article is within the scope of the journal.
• The article is original and result-oriented
I just did some primary-school level investigative work using Google Scholar to find out whether the use of generative #AI is genuinely a widespread issue in #AcademicPublishing and, within five minutes, I have cause for despair... 😲 #AcWri#AcademicChatter
If I had nothing better to do this evening, I could find many, many more instances of #AcademicPublishing junk with my not-so-sophisticated detective work... 😭 #AcademicChatter@academicsunite#GenerativeAI
New diamond open access journal 'Syntactic Theory and Research' to be founded by former editors of Syntax, resigning from editorial positions due to errors made by Wiley-Blackwell in publication process vs free labour expected of authors/reviewers/editors @linguistics@academicchatter#syntax#linguistics#OpenAccess#AcademicPublishing
#Archiving#AcademicPublishing#DigitalPreservation: "When Eve broke down the results by publisher, less than 1 percent of the 204 publishers had put the majority of their content into multiple archives. (The cutoff was 75 percent of their content in three or more archives.) Fewer than 10 percent had put more than half their content in at least two archives. And a full third seemed to be doing no organized archiving at all.
At the individual publication level, under 60 percent were present in at least one archive, and over a quarter didn't appear to be in any of the archives at all. (Another 14 percent were published too recently to have been archived or had incomplete records.)
The good news is that large academic publishers appear to be reasonably good about getting things into archives; most of the unarchived issues stem from smaller publishers.
Eve acknowledges that the study has limits, primarily in that there may be additional archives he hasn't checked. There are some prominent dark archives that he didn't have access to, as well as things like Sci-hub, which violates copyright in order to make material from for-profit publishers available to the public. Finally, individual publishers may have their own archiving system in place that could keep publications from disappearing."
#FakeScience#AcademicPublishing#ScientificPublishing#Science: "Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities.
Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud.
“The situation has become appalling,” said Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University. “The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.”
The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as “paper mills” – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there."
What about a federated model of quantifying trust? That is, like Mastodon instances, have some federated network is scientists where "instances" (which wouldn't have to be the same as universities or faculties, though those are two obvious possibilities) could choose to federate or defederate with other instances based on things like quality and reliability ("trust").
Here's an academic publishing story where the publisher (Springer Nature) inserts a random and incorrect figure into your paper after the proof stage and then refuses to correct the record. As the author writes, it is another case for preprints
Has anyone come across journals asking for similarity checks for your manuscripts as you submit them? e.g. a report from Turnitin? I haven't come across this before but would be interested to know if you have... @academicchatter #AcademicWriting#AcademicPublishing
#EU#France#Sorbonne#OpenAccess#AcademicPublishing: "A leading French university has cancelled its contract with a commercial provider of academic data to switch to a non-profit rival, boosting a growing movement to make research available for free.
From January 1, the Sorbonne will work with OpenAlex, a recently developed service offering free online access to search and analytical tools for academics’ publications, after dropping its longstanding partnership with Web of Science, owned by UK-based Clarivate.
The action is part of a wider pushback against the current model in academic publishing, where researchers publish and review papers for free but have to buy expensive subscriptions to the journals in which they are published to analyse data relating to their work. Thousands of researchers have turned to open-access platforms in recent years."
#OpenAccess#OA#AcademicPublishing: "...[T]he prospect for open access looks less promising in the humanities and social sciences. Authors in those fields rarely receive grants that cover publishing charges, and their careers often depend on publishing monographs rather than journal articles. Baldwin makes a strong case that their work, along with that of scientists, should be treated as a public good like clean air and highways. Moreover, he sees vanity and careerism as the driving forces of academic authorship. Academics outside the hard sciences receive salaries, yet feel entitled to royalties on the relatively rare occasions when they publish a book. Baldwin considers such incidental income unjustified because it is earned on company time. The publications of nonscientists should be treated as work for hire, he claims, and should be made virtually free to the public."
Hello fellow scientists, I'm looking for academic journal suggestions!
Where would you submit, or where would you go read a paper about clustering subjects based on the similarity network built from their cognitive and motor tests scores after stroke?
Preprint at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.08.23297808v1
The paper discusses both methodology (similarity measures*, graph clustering**, compared to the tradition in the field of PCA and regression), and clinical aspects (typical lesions of cluster, diagnostic power of the assessment).
It is too computerish for some clinical neurology journal, not enough for some computers-in-med/bio/etc journal.
Must be #openaccess
Ofc it's a team decision, won't be based on replies, but I am an early stage researcher and I really value discussions outside my lab!
*it's an old, little known one!
**it may be argued one of the techniques is new, both seem new wrt stroke
#AI#GenerativeAI#ChatGPT#Science#AcademicPublishing: "The most important thing I have emphasized is that generative AI is well suited to creating structure, but not content. LLMs are trained to predict the next word in a sentence. That means the content a chatbot generates is typically predictable — whereas original research is anything but.
Instead, ChatGPT can serve as a brainstorming partner. It will not give you any groundbreaking ideas, but through careful prompting, it can certainly help you to think in the right direction. It can also propose an outline for a research paper, which can serve as a starting point.
I just finished a peer review for https://f1000research.com, which was... surprisingly pleasant. Nice easy to use interface, focus on written feedback instead of checkboxes, everything's open and citeable, and you're explicitly asked not to consider novelty or importance.
I see it's owned by one of the big publishers though, so I'm sure I'm missing a dark secret...