#scholarlypublishing — Public Fediverse posts

#Editors, #managers, #designers et al in #ScholarlyPublishing, you'll want to read this about making #image #integrity #screening possible in the #editorial #workflow: https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/aries-systems-and-imagetwin-partner-to-enable-image-integrity-screening-in-the-editorial-workflow/

#Editors, #managers, #designers et al in #ScholarlyPublishing, you'll want to read this about making #image #integrity #screening possible in the #editorial #workflow: https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/aries-systems-and-imagetwin-partner-to-enable-image-integrity-screening-in-the-editorial-workflow/

#Editors, #managers, #designers et al in #ScholarlyPublishing, you'll want to read this about making #image #integrity #screening possible in the #editorial #workflow: https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/aries-systems-and-imagetwin-partner-to-enable-image-integrity-screening-in-the-editorial-workflow/

#Editors, #managers, #designers et al in #ScholarlyPublishing, you'll want to read this about making #image #integrity #screening possible in the #editorial #workflow: https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/aries-systems-and-imagetwin-partner-to-enable-image-integrity-screening-in-the-editorial-workflow/

#Editors, #managers, #designers et al in #ScholarlyPublishing, you'll want to read this about making #image #integrity #screening possible in the #editorial #workflow: https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/aries-systems-and-imagetwin-partner-to-enable-image-integrity-screening-in-the-editorial-workflow/

Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

The highlight for me was the finding

A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

The list of Diamond OA Journals that applied for the #CoDOA funding scheme is now online 💎

👉 https://codoa.ch/consortial-offer/

#openscience #diamondoa #scholarlypublishing

Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

#OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

#OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

#OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

#OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

#OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

We are proud to announce that our Managing Editor Dr. Barbara Hissa @BarbaraHissa has been appointed as an advocate for the European Diamond Capacity Hub (#EDCH).

➡️ https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/news/GUQT3IV6KTESMVC4Y2TP3M4IU4/?M=y

#DiamondOA #OpenAccess #OpenScience #Communitybuilding #ScholarlyPublishing #BJNANO 💎🔓

📢 Join a growing number of academics looking to transform their PhDs into publications.

Republish Academic Press specialises in supporting scholars looking to make an impact in their industry. Publish factually faster and fairer.

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing #PhDlife #phdstudent #Academia #Student #University #AcademicCommunity

From PhD to Publication ... to vlog?
Transforming chapters into multimedia content like YouTube videos and podcasts can be a fantastic way to make your research more accessible, engaging, and impactful.

Read more about how we are reimaging academic publication: https://www.republish.uk/insights

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing #AcademicPodcast #ResearchImpact #PhDResearch #Podcast #Learning #Outreach #Insights

Peer-Reviewed, Professional Publishing without the wait?
Our latest book was transformed from a PhD to a publication in just 3 months!

Read more: https://www.republish.uk/insights

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing #OpenAccess #ResearchImpact #PeerReview #ThoughtLeadership #PhDone #PhDwriting

✍️ Control how and when your work is shared with the world by using our bespoke publishing and promotional services.

Ready to get started … fill out a simple proposal form today and connect with our editorial team: https://www.republish.uk/services/republish-academic-press

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing

🤔 Wondering how to make your PhD research more engaging. Publishing your thesis as a book can be the first step in having an impact both within and beyond academia.

Read why we think publishing should be the natural next step after PhD completion: https://www.republish.uk/insights

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing and research quality assurance. Our latest insight breaks down the difference between the 7 most common...
https://www.republish.uk/insights

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing #PeerReview

📢 Limited 2025 production slots available
Submit your proposal today and talk with our team. No upfront costs, just proactive publishing for PhD students.

Email info@republish or visit our website https://buff.ly/5rStlPn

#AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #PostPhD #AcademicPress #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicWriting #OpenAccess #PeerReview #AcademicLife #PhDWriting #PhDone #PhDResearch #EarlyCareerResearcher #PhDCareer #ResearchImpact