Ethics In Scholarly Publishing Is More Than Following Guidelines
Without understanding the dimensions of ethics in scholarly communications, our attempts at improving the system through tools and training may not be effective and sustainable.
Haseeb Irfanullah is a biologist-turned-development facilitator, and often introduces himself as a research enthusiast. Over the last two decades, Haseeb has worked for different international development organizations, academic institutions, donors, and the Government of Bangladesh in different capacities. Currently, he is an independent consultant on environment, climate change, and research systems. He is also involved with University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh as a visiting research fellow of its Center for Sustainable Development (CSD) in Dhaka. Currently, a Council Member of European Association of Science Editors (EASE), associate editor of Learned Publishing, and associate of INASP, Haseeb advocates for sustainability, climate action, and resilience of scholarly publishing ecosystem. Haseeb has a PhD in aquatic ecology from the University of Liverpool, UK.
Without understanding the dimensions of ethics in scholarly communications, our attempts at improving the system through tools and training may not be effective and sustainable.
Journal-based scholarly communication needs a structural change
How can smaller publishers support the Sustainable Development Goals?
Leading into Peer Review Week 2024, we ask the Chefs: What is, or would be, the most valuable innovation in peer review for your community?
In a world full of natural and man-made shocks and stresses, we need to be resilient against those affecting the academic publishing ecosystem.
Today we offer a double-post, with a proposal and a response concerning how we frame our efforts toward Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility as a community.
How do we define, track, and measure trust in scholarly publishing?
We asked the Chefs to weigh in with their thoughts on the new “Towards Responsible Publishing” manifesto from cOAlition S.
Here I propose a framework for a Voluntary Contribution Transaction system to recognize the voluntary contributions in the scholarly workflow and to give tangible benefits to the volunteers.
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
What uses for artificial intelligence (AI) might we expect outside of the publication workflow? Some answers to this question can be found through the lenses of sustainability, justice, and resilience.
Last January we wrote a group post about “Twexit” and with the launch of Threads we wondered how the Chefs were feeling about the emerging and existing social media options.
How can we provide both leadership and accountability across the publishing ecosystem toward the Sustainable Development Goals?
Haseeb Irfanullah discusses how Communities of Practice can improve scholarly communications by capitalizing on our collective experiences.