Misinformation, Disinformation, and Scholarly Communication (Part 1)
How do the problems of misinformation and disinformation intersect with the concerns of scholarly communication?
How do the problems of misinformation and disinformation intersect with the concerns of scholarly communication?
Nicola Davies from IOPP details the publisher’s new data sharing requirements for authors.
Adapting to AI requires a commitment to fostering AI literacy and creating spaces to openly discuss its challenges and implications.
What can be done to resolve concerns about image integrity in scientific publications?
I tried three different large language models (LLMs) to rewrite a potential article.
The many trust issues in scholarly publishing might benefit from applying a zero-trust framework to the publication process.
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.
Self-archiving on personal sites is perfectly permitted under many journal data policies. But what happens when an author alters the underlying data?
BMJ’s Medical Humanities Editor-in-Chief Brandy Schillace reflects on changes in publishing that are making important work harder to do.
What is the Forensic Scientometrics Declaration, and how did it come about? An interview with Dr. Leslie McIntosh.
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.