Inclusive R&D: Can it Become the Rule, Not an Exception?
Inclusive publishing and design practices should be the status quo and not an afterthought.
Inclusive publishing and design practices should be the status quo and not an afterthought.
Publishers should support scholarly authors by requiring license deals with AI developers include attribution in their outputs.
In a world full of natural and man-made shocks and stresses, we need to be resilient against those affecting the academic publishing ecosystem.
Mindful of ecological factors, decision-making regarding print production shifts, balancing innovation with pragmatism.
With a new public access memo and federal agency policies due, Angela Cochran revisits her 2013 post exploring what Federally Funded means.
It is essential to address the hidden costs of retraction and to discuss who needs to bear this cost.
Today we offer a double-post, with a proposal and a response concerning how we frame our efforts toward Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility as a community.
What can we do to encourage and improve methods reporting in scientific articles? A new report summarizes recommendations for editors and publishers alike.
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?
Moving from a binary right/wrong view of metadata to a probabilistic framework brings many benefits
Even a flawed paper can offer lessons on how (not) to report, and what (not) to claim.
Think you’re pretty handy with Excel? Wait until you see the world of professional spreadsheet competitors.
Citing chatbots as information sources offer little in terms of promoting smart use of generative AI and could also be damaging.
If you use a chatbot in writing a text, and are discouraged from listing it as a coauthor, should you attribute the relevant passages to the tool via citation instead? Is it appropriate to cite chatbots as information sources?
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.