#academicpublishing — Public Fediverse posts

. @alexh talked about letters rejecting #PeerReview requests for specific publishers, e.g., here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexholcombe_declining-another-review-request-from-an-share-7426356814121689088-N0Kz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD0JHkBcK9LoDUuScfOpFwbt_UMALGWLV8

@priyasilverstein discussed the role of editors in #OpenScience, and offered the example of the guide for #SocialScience journal editors on easing into #OpenScience
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
#JEDI #JournalEditing #AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

. @alexh talked about letters rejecting #PeerReview requests for specific publishers, e.g., here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexholcombe_declining-another-review-request-from-an-share-7426356814121689088-N0Kz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD0JHkBcK9LoDUuScfOpFwbt_UMALGWLV8

@priyasilverstein discussed the role of editors in #OpenScience, and offered the example of the guide for #SocialScience journal editors on easing into #OpenScience
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
#JEDI #JournalEditing #AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

. @alexh talked about letters rejecting #PeerReview requests for specific publishers, e.g., here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexholcombe_declining-another-review-request-from-an-share-7426356814121689088-N0Kz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD0JHkBcK9LoDUuScfOpFwbt_UMALGWLV8

@priyasilverstein discussed the role of editors in #OpenScience, and offered the example of the guide for #SocialScience journal editors on easing into #OpenScience
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
#JEDI #JournalEditing #AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

. @alexh talked about letters rejecting #PeerReview requests for specific publishers, e.g., here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexholcombe_declining-another-review-request-from-an-share-7426356814121689088-N0Kz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD0JHkBcK9LoDUuScfOpFwbt_UMALGWLV8

@priyasilverstein discussed the role of editors in #OpenScience, and offered the example of the guide for #SocialScience journal editors on easing into #OpenScience
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
#JEDI #JournalEditing #AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor

RE: https://fediscience.org/@alexh/116518145538497476

This was really interesting 👏

Some slides from the event have been posted here:
https://zenodo.org/communities/muecos/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest

And some of the resources and topics that came up 👇

The #ECR reviewer's platform aims to empower junior reviewers and equip #ECRs with the necessary skills to conduct methodologically rigorous reviews
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
#PostGraduate #PGR

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity

RE: https://fediscience.org/@alexh/116518145538497476

This was really interesting 👏

Some slides from the event have been posted here:
https://zenodo.org/communities/muecos/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest

And some of the resources and topics that came up 👇

The #ECR reviewer's platform aims to empower junior reviewers and equip #ECRs with the necessary skills to conduct methodologically rigorous reviews
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
#PostGraduate #PGR

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity

RE: https://fediscience.org/@alexh/116518145538497476

This was really interesting 👏

Some slides from the event have been posted here:
https://zenodo.org/communities/muecos/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest

And some of the resources and topics that came up 👇

The #ECR reviewer's platform aims to empower junior reviewers and equip #ECRs with the necessary skills to conduct methodologically rigorous reviews
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
#PostGraduate #PGR

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity

RE: https://fediscience.org/@alexh/116518145538497476

This was really interesting 👏

Some slides from the event have been posted here:
https://zenodo.org/communities/muecos/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest

And some of the resources and topics that came up 👇

The #ECR reviewer's platform aims to empower junior reviewers and equip #ECRs with the necessary skills to conduct methodologically rigorous reviews
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
#PostGraduate #PGR

#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity

Join EMS Press for an upcoming webinar on Launch to Open, a transparent, sustainable and community-driven model for open access publishing.

The session will introduce the L2O model and include case studies from Foundations of Computational Mathematics and Archiv der Mathematik, followed by discussion and audience Q&A.

📅 15 June 2026
🕒 15:00–16:00 CEST
💻 Online via Zoom

Programme and registration: https://ems.press/open-access/launch-to-open/2026-06-15-webinar

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Mathematics

Join EMS Press for an upcoming webinar on Launch to Open, a transparent, sustainable and community-driven model for open access publishing.

The session will introduce the L2O model and include case studies from Foundations of Computational Mathematics and Archiv der Mathematik, followed by discussion and audience Q&A.

📅 15 June 2026
🕒 15:00–16:00 CEST
💻 Online via Zoom

Programme and registration: https://ems.press/open-access/launch-to-open/2026-06-15-webinar

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Mathematics

Join EMS Press for an upcoming webinar on Launch to Open, a transparent, sustainable and community-driven model for open access publishing.

The session will introduce the L2O model and include case studies from Foundations of Computational Mathematics and Archiv der Mathematik, followed by discussion and audience Q&A.

📅 15 June 2026
🕒 15:00–16:00 CEST
💻 Online via Zoom

Programme and registration: https://ems.press/open-access/launch-to-open/2026-06-15-webinar

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Mathematics

Join EMS Press for an upcoming webinar on Launch to Open, a transparent, sustainable and community-driven model for open access publishing.

The session will introduce the L2O model and include case studies from Foundations of Computational Mathematics and Archiv der Mathematik, followed by discussion and audience Q&A.

📅 15 June 2026
🕒 15:00–16:00 CEST
💻 Online via Zoom

Programme and registration: https://ems.press/open-access/launch-to-open/2026-06-15-webinar

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Mathematics

Join EMS Press for an upcoming webinar on Launch to Open, a transparent, sustainable and community-driven model for open access publishing.

The session will introduce the L2O model and include case studies from Foundations of Computational Mathematics and Archiv der Mathematik, followed by discussion and audience Q&A.

📅 15 June 2026
🕒 15:00–16:00 CEST
💻 Online via Zoom

Programme and registration: https://ems.press/open-access/launch-to-open/2026-06-15-webinar

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #Mathematics

Kinda ironic that game theory #research has to go through a negative-sum medium in order to be relevant, ain’t it?

#academia #gametheory #science #academicpublishing

Kinda ironic that game theory #research has to go through a negative-sum medium in order to be relevant, ain’t it?

#academia #gametheory #science #academicpublishing

Kinda ironic that game theory #research has to go through a negative-sum medium in order to be relevant, ain’t it?

#academia #gametheory #science #academicpublishing

Kinda ironic that game theory #research has to go through a negative-sum medium in order to be relevant, ain’t it?

#academia #gametheory #science #academicpublishing

Kinda ironic that game theory #research has to go through a negative-sum medium in order to be relevant, ain’t it?

#academia #gametheory #science #academicpublishing

RE: https://fediscience.org/@satrevik/116612366859411834

Really interesting question.

I brought something similar last month to our #Postgraduate group with this paper as an example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2026.2633517

This led to a good discussion about #AcademicCronyism. Whatever one thinks about the items in the poll, the paper offers some shades of grey regarding such actions.

#PublicationEthics #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #COPE

RE: https://fediscience.org/@satrevik/116612366859411834

Really interesting question.

I brought something similar last month to our #Postgraduate group with this paper as an example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2026.2633517

This led to a good discussion about #AcademicCronyism. Whatever one thinks about the items in the poll, the paper offers some shades of grey regarding such actions.

#PublicationEthics #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #COPE

RE: https://fediscience.org/@satrevik/116612366859411834

Really interesting question.

I brought something similar last month to our #Postgraduate group with this paper as an example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2026.2633517

This led to a good discussion about #AcademicCronyism. Whatever one thinks about the items in the poll, the paper offers some shades of grey regarding such actions.

#PublicationEthics #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #COPE

RE: https://fediscience.org/@satrevik/116612366859411834

Really interesting question.

I brought something similar last month to our #Postgraduate group with this paper as an example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2026.2633517

This led to a good discussion about #AcademicCronyism. Whatever one thinks about the items in the poll, the paper offers some shades of grey regarding such actions.

#PublicationEthics #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #COPE

RE: https://fediscience.org/@satrevik/116612366859411834

Really interesting question.

I brought something similar last month to our #Postgraduate group with this paper as an example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2026.2633517

This led to a good discussion about #AcademicCronyism. Whatever one thinks about the items in the poll, the paper offers some shades of grey regarding such actions.

#PublicationEthics #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #COPE

Really nice to see @PubPeer working so well here, allowing independent commenters, the authors, and the journal all to discuss issues with a figure in this paper "Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naïve baby chicks": https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9F19D7C016DBAE6F14DD66D59A4EC #academicpublishing #peerreview

Really nice to see @PubPeer working so well here, allowing independent commenters, the authors, and the journal all to discuss issues with a figure in this paper "Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naïve baby chicks": https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9F19D7C016DBAE6F14DD66D59A4EC #academicpublishing #peerreview

Really nice to see @PubPeer working so well here, allowing independent commenters, the authors, and the journal all to discuss issues with a figure in this paper "Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naïve baby chicks": https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9F19D7C016DBAE6F14DD66D59A4EC #academicpublishing #peerreview

Really nice to see @PubPeer working so well here, allowing independent commenters, the authors, and the journal all to discuss issues with a figure in this paper "Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naïve baby chicks": https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9F19D7C016DBAE6F14DD66D59A4EC #academicpublishing #peerreview

Really nice to see @PubPeer working so well here, allowing independent commenters, the authors, and the journal all to discuss issues with a figure in this paper "Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naïve baby chicks": https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9F19D7C016DBAE6F14DD66D59A4EC #academicpublishing #peerreview

I've said it before, and I'd say it again, pre-prints are great to bypass paywalls (esp. if your institute doesn't have an open-access agreement) and make sure your research gets out there.
Just make sure to update them after publication (or at least not if you didn't).

#Preprint #AcademicChatter #AcademicPublishing

LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations

Zhenyue Zhao, Yihe Wang, Toby Stuart, Mathijs De Vaan, Paul Ginsparg, Yian Yin

"Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate plausible but false information across a wide range of contexts, yet the real-world magnitude and consequences of this hallucination problem remain poorly understood. Here we leverage a uniquely verifiable object - scientific citations - to audit 111 million references across 2.5 million papers in arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PubMed Central. We find a sharp rise in non-existent references following widespread LLM adoption, with a conservative estimate of 146,932 hallucinated citations in 2025 alone. These errors are diffusely embedded across many papers but especially pronounced in fields with rapid AI uptake, in manuscripts with linguistic signatures of AI-assisted writing, and among small and early-career author teams. At the same time, hallucinated references disproportionately assign credit to already prominent and male scholars, suggesting that LLM-generated errors may reinforce existing inequities in scientific recognition. Preprint moderation and journal publication processes capture only a fraction of these errors, suggesting that the spread of hallucinated content has outpaced existing safeguards. Together, these findings demonstrate that LLM hallucinations are infiltrating knowledge production at scale, threatening both the reliability and equity of future scientific discovery as human and AI systems draw on the existing literature."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07723

#AI #GenerativeAI #LLMs #Hallucinations #AcademicPublishing #Science

"We are not naive about AI‑assisted writing. As authors who are also journal editors, we see an influx of submissions showing clear signs of AI use without adequate human oversight, resulting in canned phrasing, hallucinated references and rhetorical masking of invalid arguments. In a world where ‘AI slop’ can be easily generated, meaningful human engagement with the written word matters now more than ever. What we contest is the assumption that this engagement must only or pri‑marily take the form of unassisted first‑draft composition. It can also occur through in‑depth dialogue with AI models, critical reading and evaluation of AI‑generated text, and rigorous rewriting and revision.Scholarship should be evaluated on the quality of its ideas and evidence. Scholars, in turn, should be evaluated on the quality of their thinking and its effect on the work. This will require transparent disclo‑sure of AI assistance and policies that distinguish different types of AI engagement. These requirements are complex but addressing them will serve scholarship better than drawing the boundaries of legitimate thinking around a single mode of draft‑text production."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-026-00447-1.epdf?sharing_token=XIpGm3F59LWkltcDyXK7vNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MY0bhtLyIpdRUKk-UFNbxQE8kDkyAxbALogCg_lyFx33Cx5btZ76rvw_JZ3Hej9C2aVgsMw0Cy4SgZsqZZjcLIH67ReYduq9SXqTRx3vEnxxK_yn13eIUC8RzIcaC8TwQ%3D

#AI #GenerativeAI #Writing #AcademicPublishing #Science #CriticalThinking

Has this always been a thing?

I just got an email from a scientific journal publisher, informing me that an article of mine from 2024 was “among the most viewed articles” (in 2025, of the articles published in 2024).

And I mean, OK, I'll take it, but I'm sitting here wondering: is this something new, or has it been going around for a while and I just haven't heard of it? Are they really trying to get authors to publish with them with such “dopamine hit”?

I knew that sites like academia.edu and researchgate.net were trying to go the way of “social media for researchers” but this is the first time I see something like that from a more “serious” publisher.

#academia #academicPublishing #publishOrPerish

Has this always been a thing?

I just got an email from a scientific journal publisher, informing me that an article of mine from 2024 was “among the most viewed articles” (in 2025, of the articles published in 2024).

And I mean, OK, I'll take it, but I'm sitting here wondering: is this something new, or has it been going around for a while and I just haven't heard of it? Are they really trying to get authors to publish with them with such “dopamine hit”?

I knew that sites like academia.edu and researchgate.net were trying to go the way of “social media for researchers” but this is the first time I see something like that from a more “serious” publisher.

#academia #academicPublishing #publishOrPerish

Has this always been a thing?

I just got an email from a scientific journal publisher, informing me that an article of mine from 2024 was “among the most viewed articles” (in 2025, of the articles published in 2024).

And I mean, OK, I'll take it, but I'm sitting here wondering: is this something new, or has it been going around for a while and I just haven't heard of it? Are they really trying to get authors to publish with them with such “dopamine hit”?

I knew that sites like academia.edu and researchgate.net were trying to go the way of “social media for researchers” but this is the first time I see something like that from a more “serious” publisher.

#academia #academicPublishing #publishOrPerish

Has this always been a thing?

I just got an email from a scientific journal publisher, informing me that an article of mine from 2024 was “among the most viewed articles” (in 2025, of the articles published in 2024).

And I mean, OK, I'll take it, but I'm sitting here wondering: is this something new, or has it been going around for a while and I just haven't heard of it? Are they really trying to get authors to publish with them with such “dopamine hit”?

I knew that sites like academia.edu and researchgate.net were trying to go the way of “social media for researchers” but this is the first time I see something like that from a more “serious” publisher.

#academia #academicPublishing #publishOrPerish

Has this always been a thing?

I just got an email from a scientific journal publisher, informing me that an article of mine from 2024 was “among the most viewed articles” (in 2025, of the articles published in 2024).

And I mean, OK, I'll take it, but I'm sitting here wondering: is this something new, or has it been going around for a while and I just haven't heard of it? Are they really trying to get authors to publish with them with such “dopamine hit”?

I knew that sites like academia.edu and researchgate.net were trying to go the way of “social media for researchers” but this is the first time I see something like that from a more “serious” publisher.

#academia #academicPublishing #publishOrPerish

We are happy to share that the IDAHO project report is now published 🎉

It brings together the main findings and outcomes of our two years work. While related paper is still under review, the full report is already available for anyone interested.

You can download it from the repository (in German 🇩🇪 )
https://doi.org/10.34657/35502

#OpenAccess #barriers #Independent_researchers #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience

We are happy to share that the IDAHO project report is now published 🎉

It brings together the main findings and outcomes of our two years work. While related paper is still under review, the full report is already available for anyone interested.

You can download it from the repository (in German 🇩🇪 )
https://doi.org/10.34657/35502

#OpenAccess #barriers #Independent_researchers #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience

We are happy to share that the IDAHO project report is now published 🎉

It brings together the main findings and outcomes of our two years work. While related paper is still under review, the full report is already available for anyone interested.

You can download it from the repository (in German 🇩🇪 )
https://doi.org/10.34657/35502

#OpenAccess #barriers #Independent_researchers #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience

We are happy to share that the IDAHO project report is now published 🎉

It brings together the main findings and outcomes of our two years work. While related paper is still under review, the full report is already available for anyone interested.

You can download it from the repository:
https://doi.org/10.34657/35502

#OpenAccess #barriers #Independent_researchers #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience

We are happy to share that the IDAHO project report is now published 🎉

It brings together the main findings and outcomes of our two years work. While related paper is still under review, the full report is already available for anyone interested.

You can download it from the repository:
https://doi.org/10.34657/35502

#OpenAccess #barriers #Independent_researchers #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience

CIDRAP: Review uncovers rising rate of fake references in published biomedical papers. “A systematic review published yesterday in The Lancet reveals that of 97.1 million verified references in published biomedical papers, 4,046 were likely fake, with rates of fabrication rising 12-fold from 2023 through 2025—which commentators call a disturbing discovery that highlights the need to improve […]

CIDRAP: Review uncovers rising rate of fake references in published biomedical papers. “A systematic review published yesterday in The Lancet reveals that of 97.1 million verified references in published biomedical papers, 4,046 were likely fake, with rates of fabrication rising 12-fold from 2023 through 2025—which commentators call a disturbing discovery that highlights the need to improve […]

CIDRAP: Review uncovers rising rate of fake references in published biomedical papers. “A systematic review published yesterday in The Lancet reveals that of 97.1 million verified references in published biomedical papers, 4,046 were likely fake, with rates of fabrication rising 12-fold from 2023 through 2025—which commentators call a disturbing discovery that highlights the need to improve […]

CIDRAP: Review uncovers rising rate of fake references in published biomedical papers. “A systematic review published yesterday in The Lancet reveals that of 97.1 million verified references in published biomedical papers, 4,046 were likely fake, with rates of fabrication rising 12-fold from 2023 through 2025—which commentators call a disturbing discovery that highlights the need to improve […]

CIDRAP: Review uncovers rising rate of fake references in published biomedical papers. “A systematic review published yesterday in The Lancet reveals that of 97.1 million verified references in published biomedical papers, 4,046 were likely fake, with rates of fabrication rising 12-fold from 2023 through 2025—which commentators call a disturbing discovery that highlights the need to improve […]