What are prompts in our writing tools asking us if we want to “rewrite with AI” really telling us? And what would broad adoption of those tools mean for creativity and scholarly research communication?
This is the first article of three in a guest series reflecting on the main themes and ideas gathered and discussed at the Munin Conference at the end of 2024. Today’s focus is bibliodiversity.
Here we examine the second phase of China’s Journal Excellence Action Plan, its implications, its funding framework, and what it means for Chinese scientific journals, researchers, and the broader international academic publishing community.
DORA’s reaction to Clarivate’s decision to no longer fully index eLife (and, therefore, not to give it a Journal Impact Factor) seems inconsistent with both its and eLife’s public positions, and based on the mistaken belief that “disruption” is an absolute good in itself.
Robert Harington attempts to reveal inherent conflicts in our drive to be as open as possible, authors’ need to understand their rights, and a library’s mandate to provide their patrons with the enhanced discovery that comes with AI’s large language models (LLMs).
While Aretha Franklin’s “Chain of Fools” referred to betrayal of trust in love, when it comes to AI use of our work, writers feel betrayed by those who should be protecting our intellectual and creative property.
If we want to broaden the audience base for research outputs, then authors need to explore more visual formats for readers to consume. The graphical abstract is one such format.