Slow Food, Slow Publishing: The Beauty of Not Being First
Robert Harington reflects on our addiction to speed and advocates for slow scholarly publishing and the inherent beauty of not always being first.
Robert Harington reflects on our addiction to speed and advocates for slow scholarly publishing and the inherent beauty of not always being first.
Open Science 2.0 must focus not only on access, but also on trust, interpretation, learning, and effective communication. The challenge facing the scholarly publishing ecosystem is ensuring that what is open is also trustworthy, understandable, and genuinely useful.
Today’s guest post presents outcomes of the WCRI’s (World Conferences on Research Integrity) Focus Track to address this gap in clarity and standardization of AI disclosure.
Today’s guest post introduces the YCR-index as an alternative to measuring value with raw citation counts.
Today’s post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
A Cambridge workshop proposes new standard work to support provenance, attribution and metrics in scholarly communications AI tools.
Today’s post explores what happens to the scholarly content platform when AI agents become the users.
Building robust citation and attribution into generative AI systems are foundational to usage, credit and trust. We need to expect more from AI.
Today, guest blogger Rob Johnson speaks with the creator of Research Nexus Score, and observes that metadata quality has gone from a niche concern to a sector-wide anxiety.
A conversation on AI retrieval, the provenance problem, and the shared infrastructure scholarly publishing needs.
Federated identity should be a natural fit for library access. So why isn’t it?
AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.
For scholarly publishers, the user has changed faster than the systems designed to serve them, and the gap between the two is where most of the difficult work is happening.
With CC Signals, Creative Commons wants to help authors put rules on use of their licensed content for AI training. The problem is, one of the licenses already permits free and unlimited reuse of that content, for any and all purposes. And the licenses are irrevocable.
Today, we feature a friendly debate on the question: which parts of the research lifecycle should be more automated, and which require more of a human touch — and why?