Journal articles with ChatGPT authored text are being found. How common is this in the literature? And how, or better yet, when, is this problematic text slipping through to publication?
A list of the most influential scientists suffers from anomalies and inaccuracies.
Legislation often lags technological advances. The EU’s Digital Single Market Copyright Directive leaves many open questions regarding AI text- and data-mining.
Noted journalist and scholarly communication observer Richard Poynder explains why he has given up on the open access movement.
In our next Kitchen Essentials post, Alice Meadows interviews Juan Pablo Alperin and John Willinsky of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP)
Following on from yesterday’s introduction to Kitchen Essentials, today Alice Meadows interviews Adam Hyde of Coko for the first post in this new series.
The American Chemical Society is offering a new approach to funding open-access articles; Rick Anderson interviews Sarah Tegen about it.
Is there value to be found in national, or language based preprint servers? Matthew Salter discusses lessons learned from the first year of Japan’s Jxiv.
Data quality and record keeping are going to grow in importance as a result of AI applications.
Looking at five ‘lines’ that the publishing industry has broadly agreed upon, but that now we are finding ourselves crossing.
Today, Clarivate has installed Bar Veinstein as president for Academic and Government, a move that should bring renewed focus to the product portfolio, writes Roger C. Schonfeld.
The cost to publish OA is quickly becoming a new paywall in science, substituting the difficulty to read papers with the inability to showcase results in journals seen as reputable, due to the financial barrier of APCs.
There are still barriers and hesitations around open research practices. Erika Pastrana and Simon Adar suggest that publishers and technology platforms can better support authors and drive uptake.
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz discusses PLOS’s Open Science Indicators initiatives and shares initial results.
eLife’s recent announcement that it will reinvent itself as a “service that reviews preprints” has generated much discussion over recent weeks. But what are the primary drivers and goals, and what might we all learn from this bold experiment?