#academic-publishing — Public Fediverse posts

📖 New Publication Alert!
We are delighted to share that our PhD researcher Ricardo Rudas Meo has published a new open-access research article in Asian Ethnicity.
In the article, Ricardo examines how the Chinese Communist Party used the Korean War (1950–1953) as a discursive framework to reinforce its vision of Chinese nationhood, territoriality, and the place of so-called “minority nationalities” in China’s southwestern borderlands.
“The frontier on the front lines: the Chinese Communist discourse on China’s southwest and its peoples during the Korean War, 1950–1953”
Asian Ethnicity
🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2026.2705370

@unifreiburg @dfg_public @empires @histodons #histodon #histodons
#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #AsianEthnicity #History #KoreanWar #China #Histodons #Empires #PostImperial #CCP #Asia

📖 New Publication Alert!
We are delighted to share that our PhD researcher Ricardo Rudas Meo has published a new open-access research article in Asian Ethnicity.
In the article, Ricardo examines how the Chinese Communist Party used the Korean War (1950–1953) as a discursive framework to reinforce its vision of Chinese nationhood, territoriality, and the place of so-called “minority nationalities” in China’s southwestern borderlands.
“The frontier on the front lines: the Chinese Communist discourse on China’s southwest and its peoples during the Korean War, 1950–1953”
Asian Ethnicity
🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2026.2705370

@unifreiburg @dfg_public @empires @histodons #histodon #histodons
#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #AsianEthnicity #History #KoreanWar #China #Histodons #Empires #PostImperial #CCP #Asia

📖 New Publication Alert!
We are delighted to share that our PhD researcher Ricardo Rudas Meo has published a new open-access research article in Asian Ethnicity.
In the article, Ricardo examines how the Chinese Communist Party used the Korean War (1950–1953) as a discursive framework to reinforce its vision of Chinese nationhood, territoriality, and the place of so-called “minority nationalities” in China’s southwestern borderlands.
“The frontier on the front lines: the Chinese Communist discourse on China’s southwest and its peoples during the Korean War, 1950–1953”
Asian Ethnicity
🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2026.2705370

@unifreiburg @dfg_public @empires @histodons #histodon #histodons
#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #AsianEthnicity #History #KoreanWar #China #Histodons #Empires #PostImperial #CCP #Asia

📖 New Publication Alert!
We are delighted to share that our PhD researcher Ricardo Rudas Meo has published a new open-access research article in Asian Ethnicity.
In the article, Ricardo examines how the Chinese Communist Party used the Korean War (1950–1953) as a discursive framework to reinforce its vision of Chinese nationhood, territoriality, and the place of so-called “minority nationalities” in China’s southwestern borderlands.
“The frontier on the front lines: the Chinese Communist discourse on China’s southwest and its peoples during the Korean War, 1950–1953”
Asian Ethnicity
🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2026.2705370

@unifreiburg @dfg_public @empires @histodons #histodon #histodons
#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #AsianEthnicity #History #KoreanWar #China #Histodons #Empires #PostImperial #CCP #Asia

📖 New Publication Alert!
We are delighted to share that our PhD researcher Ricardo Rudas Meo has published a new open-access research article in Asian Ethnicity.
In the article, Ricardo examines how the Chinese Communist Party used the Korean War (1950–1953) as a discursive framework to reinforce its vision of Chinese nationhood, territoriality, and the place of so-called “minority nationalities” in China’s southwestern borderlands.
“The frontier on the front lines: the Chinese Communist discourse on China’s southwest and its peoples during the Korean War, 1950–1953”
Asian Ethnicity
🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2026.2705370

@unifreiburg @dfg_public @empires @histodons #histodon #histodons
#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #AsianEthnicity #History #KoreanWar #China #Histodons #Empires #PostImperial #CCP #Asia

Wishing the communications from the "Journal of Intelligent Communication" were a little more intelligent.

"Dear Xxx,

My name is Editorial Office, and I am writing on behalf of Journal of Intelligent Communication. I came across your article, "Introduction". Its focus on Introduction caught our attention. I would like to invite you to consider a new and unpublished contribution to Journal of Intelligent Communication."
#AcademicPublishing #LLMs

Wishing the communications from the "Journal of Intelligent Communication" were a little more intelligent.

"Dear Xxx,

My name is Editorial Office, and I am writing on behalf of Journal of Intelligent Communication. I came across your article, "Introduction". Its focus on Introduction caught our attention. I would like to invite you to consider a new and unpublished contribution to Journal of Intelligent Communication."
#AcademicPublishing #LLMs

Wishing the communications from the "Journal of Intelligent Communication" were a little more intelligent.

"Dear Xxx,

My name is Editorial Office, and I am writing on behalf of Journal of Intelligent Communication. I came across your article, "Introduction". Its focus on Introduction caught our attention. I would like to invite you to consider a new and unpublished contribution to Journal of Intelligent Communication."
#AcademicPublishing #LLMs

Wishing the communications from the "Journal of Intelligent Communication" were a little more intelligent.

"Dear Xxx,

My name is Editorial Office, and I am writing on behalf of Journal of Intelligent Communication. I came across your article, "Introduction". Its focus on Introduction caught our attention. I would like to invite you to consider a new and unpublished contribution to Journal of Intelligent Communication."
#AcademicPublishing #LLMs

Wishing the communications from the "Journal of Intelligent Communication" were a little more intelligent.

"Dear Xxx,

My name is Editorial Office, and I am writing on behalf of Journal of Intelligent Communication. I came across your article, "Introduction". Its focus on Introduction caught our attention. I would like to invite you to consider a new and unpublished contribution to Journal of Intelligent Communication."
#AcademicPublishing #LLMs

EMS Press is heading to OASPA 2026 in Zagreb. 👋

The annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) brings together the open scholarly communication community to exchange ideas and explore some of the major questions shaping the future of open access. This year’s conference takes place in Zagreb, Croatia, from 21–23 September.

Laura Simonite, Head of Business Development at EMS Press, will be joining the conference from Tuesday, and on Wednesday she’ll take part in the Poster Lightning Talk session with:

🎤 Launch to Open: Shared Risk, Collective Benefit
📅 Wednesday 23 September
🕛 11.55 am–12.40 pm

The talk introduces Launch to Open, a new model being piloted by EMS Press that explores how transparent journal finances and collective library support can help established journals move towards sustainable open access.

If you’re at #OASPA2026, come and find Laura and join the conversation. We’re looking forward to discussing what community-led approaches to scholarly publishing can look like in practice.

🔗 Conference information and programme: https://www.oaspa.org/events/annualconference/

#EMSPress #OpenAccess #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing #Libraries

EMS Press is heading to OASPA 2026 in Zagreb. 👋

The annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) brings together the open scholarly communication community to exchange ideas and explore some of the major questions shaping the future of open access. This year’s conference takes place in Zagreb, Croatia, from 21–23 September.

Laura Simonite, Head of Business Development at EMS Press, will be joining the conference from Tuesday, and on Wednesday she’ll take part in the Poster Lightning Talk session with:

🎤 Launch to Open: Shared Risk, Collective Benefit
📅 Wednesday 23 September
🕛 11.55 am–12.40 pm

The talk introduces Launch to Open, a new model being piloted by EMS Press that explores how transparent journal finances and collective library support can help established journals move towards sustainable open access.

If you’re at #OASPA2026, come and find Laura and join the conversation. We’re looking forward to discussing what community-led approaches to scholarly publishing can look like in practice.

🔗 Conference information and programme: https://www.oaspa.org/events/annualconference/

#EMSPress #OpenAccess #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing #Libraries

EMS Press is heading to OASPA 2026 in Zagreb. 👋

The annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) brings together the open scholarly communication community to exchange ideas and explore some of the major questions shaping the future of open access. This year’s conference takes place in Zagreb, Croatia, from 21–23 September.

Laura Simonite, Head of Business Development at EMS Press, will be joining the conference from Tuesday, and on Wednesday she’ll take part in the Poster Lightning Talk session with:

🎤 Launch to Open: Shared Risk, Collective Benefit
📅 Wednesday 23 September
🕛 11.55 am–12.40 pm

The talk introduces Launch to Open, a new model being piloted by EMS Press that explores how transparent journal finances and collective library support can help established journals move towards sustainable open access.

If you’re at #OASPA2026, come and find Laura and join the conversation. We’re looking forward to discussing what community-led approaches to scholarly publishing can look like in practice.

🔗 Conference information and programme: https://www.oaspa.org/events/annualconference/

#EMSPress #OpenAccess #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing #Libraries

EMS Press is heading to OASPA 2026 in Zagreb. 👋

The annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) brings together the open scholarly communication community to exchange ideas and explore some of the major questions shaping the future of open access. This year’s conference takes place in Zagreb, Croatia, from 21–23 September.

Laura Simonite, Head of Business Development at EMS Press, will be joining the conference from Tuesday, and on Wednesday she’ll take part in the Poster Lightning Talk session with:

🎤 Launch to Open: Shared Risk, Collective Benefit
📅 Wednesday 23 September
🕛 11.55 am–12.40 pm

The talk introduces Launch to Open, a new model being piloted by EMS Press that explores how transparent journal finances and collective library support can help established journals move towards sustainable open access.

If you’re at #OASPA2026, come and find Laura and join the conversation. We’re looking forward to discussing what community-led approaches to scholarly publishing can look like in practice.

🔗 Conference information and programme: https://www.oaspa.org/events/annualconference/

#EMSPress #OpenAccess #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing #Libraries

EMS Press is heading to OASPA 2026 in Zagreb. 👋

The annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) brings together the open scholarly communication community to exchange ideas and explore some of the major questions shaping the future of open access. This year’s conference takes place in Zagreb, Croatia, from 21–23 September.

Laura Simonite, Head of Business Development at EMS Press, will be joining the conference from Tuesday, and on Wednesday she’ll take part in the Poster Lightning Talk session with:

🎤 Launch to Open: Shared Risk, Collective Benefit
📅 Wednesday 23 September
🕛 11.55 am–12.40 pm

The talk introduces Launch to Open, a new model being piloted by EMS Press that explores how transparent journal finances and collective library support can help established journals move towards sustainable open access.

If you’re at #OASPA2026, come and find Laura and join the conversation. We’re looking forward to discussing what community-led approaches to scholarly publishing can look like in practice.

🔗 Conference information and programme: https://www.oaspa.org/events/annualconference/

#EMSPress #OpenAccess #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing #Libraries

From this perspective on AI and "peer" review, I'm surprised to actually not see any increase in the rate of growth of articles with LLMs?
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #AI

From this perspective on AI and "peer" review, I'm surprised to actually not see any increase in the rate of growth of articles with LLMs?
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #AI

From this perspective on AI and "peer" review, I'm surprised to actually not see any increase in the rate of growth of articles with LLMs?
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #AI

From this perspective on AI and "peer" review, I'm surprised to actually not see any increase in the rate of growth of articles with LLMs?
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #AI

From this perspective on AI and "peer" review, I'm surprised to actually not see any increase in the rate of growth of articles with LLMs?
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #AI

Submission requirements (word limits, abstract limits, reference caps) for 7,239 academic journals - open dataset, CC BY 4.0 https://github.com/scraiber/journal-submission-requirements

Normalized submission requirements for 7,239 academic journals, collected from each journal's own author guidelines and mapped to fields via OpenAlex.

#AcademicPublishing #OpenData

Submission requirements (word limits, abstract limits, reference caps) for 7,239 academic journals - open dataset, CC BY 4.0 https://github.com/scraiber/journal-submission-requirements

Normalized submission requirements for 7,239 academic journals, collected from each journal's own author guidelines and mapped to fields via OpenAlex.

#AcademicPublishing #OpenData

Submission requirements (word limits, abstract limits, reference caps) for 7,239 academic journals - open dataset, CC BY 4.0 https://github.com/scraiber/journal-submission-requirements

Normalized submission requirements for 7,239 academic journals, collected from each journal's own author guidelines and mapped to fields via OpenAlex.

#AcademicPublishing #OpenData

Submission requirements (word limits, abstract limits, reference caps) for 7,239 academic journals - open dataset, CC BY 4.0 https://github.com/scraiber/journal-submission-requirements

Normalized submission requirements for 7,239 academic journals, collected from each journal's own author guidelines and mapped to fields via OpenAlex.

#AcademicPublishing #OpenData

Submission requirements (word limits, abstract limits, reference caps) for 7,239 academic journals - open dataset, CC BY 4.0 https://github.com/scraiber/journal-submission-requirements

Normalized submission requirements for 7,239 academic journals, collected from each journal's own author guidelines and mapped to fields via OpenAlex.

#AcademicPublishing #OpenData

Editorial handover at Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric #Epidemiology. Outgoing Craig Morgan's editorial about "Time for Change"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-026-03166-5

"[...] scientific journals are the products, and therefore the intellectual property, of scientific communities."

"There are many calls for the concept of statistical significance to be retired. I regret not implementing this in SPPE."

All the best to Uli Reininghaus and the new team!

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

Editorial handover at Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric #Epidemiology. Outgoing Craig Morgan's editorial about "Time for Change"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-026-03166-5

"[...] scientific journals are the products, and therefore the intellectual property, of scientific communities."

"There are many calls for the concept of statistical significance to be retired. I regret not implementing this in SPPE."

All the best to Uli Reininghaus and the new team!

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

Editorial handover at Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric #Epidemiology. Outgoing Craig Morgan's editorial about "Time for Change"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-026-03166-5

"[...] scientific journals are the products, and therefore the intellectual property, of scientific communities."

"There are many calls for the concept of statistical significance to be retired. I regret not implementing this in SPPE."

All the best to Uli Reininghaus and the new team!

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

Editorial handover at Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric #Epidemiology. Outgoing Craig Morgan's editorial about "Time for Change"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-026-03166-5

"[...] scientific journals are the products, and therefore the intellectual property, of scientific communities."

"There are many calls for the concept of statistical significance to be retired. I regret not implementing this in SPPE."

All the best to Uli Reininghaus and the new team!

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

Editorial handover at Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric #Epidemiology. Outgoing Craig Morgan's editorial about "Time for Change"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-026-03166-5

"[...] scientific journals are the products, and therefore the intellectual property, of scientific communities."

"There are many calls for the concept of statistical significance to be retired. I regret not implementing this in SPPE."

All the best to Uli Reininghaus and the new team!

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

Daily Nous: After Experiment, Journal Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content. “Earlier this month, the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published an article largely written by an AI. The article was described as an experiment by the philosopher who submitted it, Simon Goldstein (Hong Kong), and its publication was similarly described by the journal’s editor in chief, Jason Brennan […]

Daily Nous: After Experiment, Journal Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content. “Earlier this month, the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published an article largely written by an AI. The article was described as an experiment by the philosopher who submitted it, Simon Goldstein (Hong Kong), and its publication was similarly described by the journal’s editor in chief, Jason Brennan […]

Daily Nous: After Experiment, Journal Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content. “Earlier this month, the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published an article largely written by an AI. The article was described as an experiment by the philosopher who submitted it, Simon Goldstein (Hong Kong), and its publication was similarly described by the journal’s editor in chief, Jason Brennan […]

Daily Nous: After Experiment, Journal Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content. “Earlier this month, the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published an article largely written by an AI. The article was described as an experiment by the philosopher who submitted it, Simon Goldstein (Hong Kong), and its publication was similarly described by the journal’s editor in chief, Jason Brennan […]

Daily Nous: After Experiment, Journal Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content. “Earlier this month, the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published an article largely written by an AI. The article was described as an experiment by the philosopher who submitted it, Simon Goldstein (Hong Kong), and its publication was similarly described by the journal’s editor in chief, Jason Brennan […]

"“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields.

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen."

https://www.404media.co/the-ai-ghosts-contaminating-academic-publishing/

#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #AISlop

"“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields.

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen."

https://www.404media.co/the-ai-ghosts-contaminating-academic-publishing/

#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #AISlop

"“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields.

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen."

https://www.404media.co/the-ai-ghosts-contaminating-academic-publishing/

#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #AISlop

"“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields.

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen."

https://www.404media.co/the-ai-ghosts-contaminating-academic-publishing/

#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #AISlop

"“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields.

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen."

https://www.404media.co/the-ai-ghosts-contaminating-academic-publishing/

#AI #GenerativeAI #AcademicPublishing #AISlop

With Frances Pinter, discussing the future of the academic monograph
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/08/26/guest-post-from-charity-to-intellectual-partnership-the-global-monograph-crisis-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-open-access-through-the-lens-of-ukraine/
#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Monographs #OpenScience #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #ResearchInfrastructure #KnowledgeEquity #Ukraine #UkrainianScience #SUPRR #BookArsenal #AcademicBooks #ResearchCommunication

With Frances Pinter, discussing the future of the academic monograph
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/08/26/guest-post-from-charity-to-intellectual-partnership-the-global-monograph-crisis-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-open-access-through-the-lens-of-ukraine/
#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Monographs #OpenScience #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #ResearchInfrastructure #KnowledgeEquity #Ukraine #UkrainianScience #SUPRR #BookArsenal #AcademicBooks #ResearchCommunication

Submission Fees Are Coming: There Are Better Alternatives

Journal submission fees are coming to organization and management research. California Management Review has just announced that it introduces submission fees of $75 to $150 per article submitted. Paying this fee is the precondition for even being considered for peer review, yet your article might still get desk rejected. The reason stated for this move is of course even higher submission numbers due to AI.

While submission fees are common in neighbouring disciplines such Economics, I still think they are a very bad idea: scholars from well-funded institutions (mostly situated in the Global North) won’t be affected but other scholars will be. It deepens the already enormous gulf in academic opportunity between well-funded and less well-funded research institutions, which is amplified by the self-reinforcing feedback loop of publication output and third-party funding input.

While submission fees might seem like a necessary fix to ever-increasing submission numbers outpacing reviewing capacities, there are alternative measures that could be taken:

• Per-author submission caps: journals could introduce a maximum of, for example, two active manuscripts or two submissions per year. This is a measure already tested by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory since July 1 of this year.
• “Review before you submit” or journal peer-review credits: mandatory reviewing before submission would be a twofer, increasing the pool of reviewers while also reducing the number of submissions.
• Pitch-based two-step submission process: rather than processing full papers some journals (e.g., Journal of Management in its Special Calls for Qualitative Research Proposals) first require an extended abstract or short paper, with editors only inviting promising and in-scope manuscripts to proceed.

These are just three ad hoc measures that could be quite easily adopted and also combined with each other (see also Hanneke et al. (2026) for more). Addressing structural issues such as the problem of rewarding quantity over quality in academic evaluation or reducing inequality in reviewing loads by cross-journal reviewing limits would probably help even more, but these are no immediate solutions.

So, to all of you with editorial roles in the field of management and organization studies who are considering the introduction of submission fees: please first explore alternatives that do not further exacerbate the already significant social inequalities prevalent in contemporary academia.

Submission Fees Are Coming: There Are Better Alternatives

Journal submission fees are coming to organization and management research. California Management Review has just announced that it introduces submission fees of $75 to $150 per article submitted. Paying this fee is the precondition for even being considered for peer review, yet your article might still get desk rejected. The reason stated for this move is of course even higher submission numbers due to AI.

While submission fees are common in neighbouring disciplines such Economics, I still think they are a very bad idea: scholars from well-funded institutions (mostly situated in the Global North) won’t be affected but other scholars will be. It deepens the already enormous gulf in academic opportunity between well-funded and less well-funded research institutions, which is amplified by the self-reinforcing feedback loop of publication output and third-party funding input.

While submission fees might seem like a necessary fix to ever-increasing submission numbers outpacing reviewing capacities, there are alternative measures that could be taken:

• Per-author submission caps: journals could introduce a maximum of, for example, two active manuscripts or two submissions per year. This is a measure already tested by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory since July 1 of this year.
• “Review before you submit” or journal peer-review credits: mandatory reviewing before submission would be a twofer, increasing the pool of reviewers while also reducing the number of submissions.
• Pitch-based two-step submission process: rather than processing full papers some journals (e.g., Journal of Management in its Special Calls for Qualitative Research Proposals) first require an extended abstract or short paper, with editors only inviting promising and in-scope manuscripts to proceed.

These are just three ad hoc measures that could be quite easily adopted and also combined with each other (see also Hanneke et al. (2026) for more). Addressing structural issues such as the problem of rewarding quantity over quality in academic evaluation or reducing inequality in reviewing loads by cross-journal reviewing limits would probably help even more, but these are no immediate solutions.

So, to all of you with editorial roles in the field of management and organization studies who are considering the introduction of submission fees: please first explore alternatives that do not further exacerbate the already significant social inequalities prevalent in contemporary academia.

Submission Fees Are Coming: There Are Better Alternatives

Journal submission fees are coming to organization and management research. California Management Review has just announced that it introduces submission fees of $75 to $150 per article submitted. Paying this fee is the precondition for even being considered for peer review, yet your article might still get desk rejected. The reason stated for this move is of course even higher submission numbers due to AI.

While submission fees are common in neighbouring disciplines such Economics, I still think they are a very bad idea: scholars from well-funded institutions (mostly situated in the Global North) won’t be affected but other scholars will be. It deepens the already enormous gulf in academic opportunity between well-funded and less well-funded research institutions, which is amplified by the self-reinforcing feedback loop of publication output and third-party funding input.

While submission fees might seem like a necessary fix to ever-increasing submission numbers outpacing reviewing capacities, there are alternative measures that could be taken:

• Per-author submission caps: journals could introduce a maximum of, for example, two active manuscripts or two submissions per year. This is a measure already tested by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory since July 1 of this year.
• “Review before you submit” or journal peer-review credits: mandatory reviewing before submission would be a twofer, increasing the pool of reviewers while also reducing the number of submissions.
• Pitch-based two-step submission process: rather than processing full papers some journals (e.g., Journal of Management in its Special Calls for Qualitative Research Proposals) first require an extended abstract or short paper, with editors only inviting promising and in-scope manuscripts to proceed.

These are just three ad hoc measures that could be quite easily adopted and also combined with each other (see also Hanneke et al. (2026) for more). Addressing structural issues such as the problem of rewarding quantity over quality in academic evaluation or reducing inequality in reviewing loads by cross-journal reviewing limits would probably help even more, but these are no immediate solutions.

So, to all of you with editorial roles in the field of management and organization studies who are considering the introduction of submission fees: please first explore alternatives that do not further exacerbate the already significant social inequalities prevalent in contemporary academia.

Submission Fees Are Coming: There Are Better Alternatives

Journal submission fees are coming to organization and management research. California Management Review has just announced that it introduces submission fees of $75 to $150 per article submitted. Paying this fee is the precondition for even being considered for peer review, yet your article might still get desk rejected. The reason stated for this move is of course even higher submission numbers due to AI.

While submission fees are common in neighbouring disciplines such Economics, I still think they are a very bad idea: scholars from well-funded institutions (mostly situated in the Global North) won’t be affected but other scholars will be. It deepens the already enormous gulf in academic opportunity between well-funded and less well-funded research institutions, which is amplified by the self-reinforcing feedback loop of publication output and third-party funding input.

While submission fees might seem like a necessary fix to ever-increasing submission numbers outpacing reviewing capacities, there are alternative measures that could be taken:

• Per-author submission caps: journals could introduce a maximum of, for example, two active manuscripts or two submissions per year. This is a measure already tested by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory since July 1 of this year.
• “Review before you submit” or journal peer-review credits: mandatory reviewing before submission would be a twofer, increasing the pool of reviewers while also reducing the number of submissions.
• Pitch-based two-step submission process: rather than processing full papers some journals (e.g., Journal of Management in its Special Calls for Qualitative Research Proposals) first require an extended abstract or short paper, with editors only inviting promising and in-scope manuscripts to proceed.

These are just three ad hoc measures that could be quite easily adopted and also combined with each other (see also Hanneke et al. (2026) for more). Addressing structural issues such as the problem of rewarding quantity over quality in academic evaluation or reducing inequality in reviewing loads by cross-journal reviewing limits would probably help even more, but these are no immediate solutions.

So, to all of you with editorial roles in the field of management and organization studies who are considering the introduction of submission fees: please first explore alternatives that do not further exacerbate the already significant social inequalities prevalent in contemporary academia.

Submission Fees Are Coming: There Are Better Alternatives

Journal submission fees are coming to organization and management research. California Management Review has just announced that it introduces submission fees of $75 to $150 per article submitted. Paying this fee is the precondition for even being considered for peer review, yet your article might still get desk rejected. The reason stated for this move is of course even higher submission numbers due to AI.

While submission fees are common in neighbouring disciplines such Economics, I still think they are a very bad idea: scholars from well-funded institutions (mostly situated in the Global North) won’t be affected but other scholars will be. It deepens the already enormous gulf in academic opportunity between well-funded and less well-funded research institutions, which is amplified by the self-reinforcing feedback loop of publication output and third-party funding input.

While submission fees might seem like a necessary fix to ever-increasing submission numbers outpacing reviewing capacities, there are alternative measures that could be taken:

• Per-author submission caps: journals could introduce a maximum of, for example, two active manuscripts or two submissions per year. This is a measure already tested by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory since July 1 of this year.
• “Review before you submit” or journal peer-review credits: mandatory reviewing before submission would be a twofer, increasing the pool of reviewers while also reducing the number of submissions.
• Pitch-based two-step submission process: rather than processing full papers some journals (e.g., Journal of Management in its Special Calls for Qualitative Research Proposals) first require an extended abstract or short paper, with editors only inviting promising and in-scope manuscripts to proceed.

These are just three ad hoc measures that could be quite easily adopted and also combined with each other (see also Hanneke et al. (2026) for more). Addressing structural issues such as the problem of rewarding quantity over quality in academic evaluation or reducing inequality in reviewing loads by cross-journal reviewing limits would probably help even more, but these are no immediate solutions.

So, to all of you with editorial roles in the field of management and organization studies who are considering the introduction of submission fees: please first explore alternatives that do not further exacerbate the already significant social inequalities prevalent in contemporary academia.

📢 Call for Papers: Explore the Future of Organizational Behavior
How do workplace dynamics shape employee performance, attitudes, and organizational success?
We invite researchers and scholars to contribute to the Special Issue “Organizational Behavior: Employee Performance, Attitudes, and Workplace Dysfunction” in Administrative Sciences @mdpi.com
#OrganizationalBehavior #EmployeePerformance #WorkplaceWellbeing #HumanResourceManagement #AcademicPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Explore the Future of Organizational Behavior
How do workplace dynamics shape employee performance, attitudes, and organizational success?
We invite researchers and scholars to contribute to the Special Issue “Organizational Behavior: Employee Performance, Attitudes, and Workplace Dysfunction” in Administrative Sciences @mdpi.com
#OrganizationalBehavior #EmployeePerformance #WorkplaceWellbeing #HumanResourceManagement #AcademicPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Explore the Future of Organizational Behavior
How do workplace dynamics shape employee performance, attitudes, and organizational success?
We invite researchers and scholars to contribute to the Special Issue “Organizational Behavior: Employee Performance, Attitudes, and Workplace Dysfunction” in Administrative Sciences @mdpi.com
#OrganizationalBehavior #EmployeePerformance #WorkplaceWellbeing #HumanResourceManagement #AcademicPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Explore the Future of Organizational Behavior
How do workplace dynamics shape employee performance, attitudes, and organizational success?
We invite researchers and scholars to contribute to the Special Issue “Organizational Behavior: Employee Performance, Attitudes, and Workplace Dysfunction” in Administrative Sciences @mdpi.com
#OrganizationalBehavior #EmployeePerformance #WorkplaceWellbeing #HumanResourceManagement #AcademicPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Explore the Future of Organizational Behavior
How do workplace dynamics shape employee performance, attitudes, and organizational success?
We invite researchers and scholars to contribute to the Special Issue “Organizational Behavior: Employee Performance, Attitudes, and Workplace Dysfunction” in Administrative Sciences @mdpi.com
#OrganizationalBehavior #EmployeePerformance #WorkplaceWellbeing #HumanResourceManagement #AcademicPublishing

The world of academic publishing is marvellous: reviewers may be experts in one half of an interdisciplinary paper, dismiss the other half from outside their own field, and then recommend work written by the authors or their closest colleagues.

#academia #academicpublishing #fuckoff #PeerReview #ReviewerTwo

The world of academic publishing is marvellous: reviewers may be experts in one half of an interdisciplinary paper, dismiss the other half from outside their own field, and then recommend work written by the authors or their closest colleagues.

#academia #academicpublishing #fuckoff #PeerReview #ReviewerTwo

Poll.
1. Should I write another academic paper?

If YES should it be about
2a) the collapse of the knowledge commons
2b) data, consent and privacy in digital learning

3. NO. Don't bother, academic publishing is a busted flush, at least in education and humanities

(caveat: this post got zero reactions in bsky, which was a litmus test on engagement)

#academia #academicchatter #feedback #academicpublishing

Poll.
1. Should I write another academic paper?

If YES should it be about
2a) the collapse of the knowledge commons
2b) data, consent and privacy in digital learning

3. NO. Don't bother, academic publishing is a busted flush, at least in education and humanities

(caveat: this post got zero reactions in bsky, which was a litmus test on engagement)

#academia #academicchatter #feedback #academicpublishing

Poll.
1. Should I write another academic paper?

If YES should it be about
2a) the collapse of the knowledge commons
2b) data, consent and privacy in digital learning

3. NO. Don't bother, academic publishing is a busted flush, at least in education and humanities

(caveat: this post got zero reactions in bsky, which was a litmus test on engagement)

#academia #academicchatter #feedback #academicpublishing

Poll.
1. Should I write another academic paper?

If YES should it be about
2a) the collapse of the knowledge commons
2b) data, consent and privacy in digital learning

3. NO. Don't bother, academic publishing is a busted flush, at least in education and humanities

(caveat: this post got zero reactions in bsky, which was a litmus test on engagement)

#academia #academicchatter #feedback #academicpublishing

Poll.
1. Should I write another academic paper?

If YES should it be about
2a) the collapse of the knowledge commons
2b) data, consent and privacy in digital learning

3. NO. Don't bother, academic publishing is a busted flush, at least in education and humanities

(caveat: this post got zero reactions in bsky, which was a litmus test on engagement)

#academia #academicchatter #feedback #academicpublishing

This collection brings together calls for papers and research opportunities in special journal issues focusing on Human and Social Dynamics at Individual, Organizational, and Societal Levels.
What you can expect:
🔹 Calls for papers for special issues
🔹 Submission deadlines and key details
🔹 Research themes, aims, and scopes of collections
🔹 Opportunities to share your work with a global academic community
#AcademicPublishing #SpecialIssue #InterdisciplinaryStudies #ResearchOpportunities