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.
A diverse panel of researchers shared their first-hand publishing experiences at the 2024New Directions seminar.
Journal-based scholarly communication needs a structural change
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.
IOP Publishing offers a short video that draws attention to the importance of professional and constructive peer reviews.
Are there ways to use AI in the research workflow to speed up the peer review process — and, while we’re at it, to address some of the other problems around bias and quality?
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?
Antitrust litigation has been filed against six major scholarly publishers. We reached out to the community for their thoughts.
Publishers should support scholarly authors by requiring license deals with AI developers include attribution in their outputs.
The FORCE11 conference at UCLA lays the groundwork to continue its efforts to transform research communications and e-scholarship.
It is essential to address the hidden costs of retraction and to discuss who needs to bear this cost.
An interview with Klaas Sijtsma discussing the importance of statistical analysis in research integrity.
Do publishers really understand what tools researchers are using and how they are using them? Can we do more to create better policies based on real use cases and not hypothetical conjecture about what AI might do in the future?
Three Oxford administrators want to lower the cost of mandatory open access by shifting the responsibility for enforcement to funding agencies. But that doesn’t lower costs at all; it only shifts them. To truly lower costs, stop trying to make open access mandatory.