#academic-publishing

#academic-publishing

The rise of AI in peer reviews necessitates guidelines to ensure quality and integrity in academic publishing.

There is a growing recognition of the need for rigorous quality-control mechanisms in academic publishing to combat issues like paper mills.

Six academics have filed a class action lawsuit against major publishers for exploiting labor and hindering scientific progress.

The Stacks Journal seeks to revamp the peer-review process amid growing concerns over inefficiencies and predatory practices in academic publishing.

Peer reviews often contain unprofessional comments, which can impact researchers' confidence and productivity.

The integration of technology like AI is being promoted to improve the peer-review process.

AI tools will be widely accepted in research processes within two years, according to a global survey of researchers.

Generative AI is being used to create fake academic articles, manipulating metrics like CiteScore for promotions and hiring decisions.

Female representation in scholarly researchers has increased globally, but gender disparities persist across fields and career stages.

Specialist journals play a crucial role in species protection under US law more than renowned publications.

Conservation researchers face a career disconnect between impactful research and academic recognition.

Female scientists quit academic publishing earlier than male counterparts, despite equal representation in certain disciplines.

One-third of scientists leave the field within five years of their first publication, a significant academic turnover.

Scientists can purchase fake citations to inflate their research profiles, raising integrity concerns in academic publishing.

AI-generated papers are increasingly appearing in academic search engines like Google Scholar, raising concerns about misinformation.

Sci-Hub enables continued citation of retracted papers, risking their misuse due to lack of retraction indication.

Clarivate removed Chemosphere from Web of Science due to quality concerns, affecting its impact factor and credibility.

The loss of eLife's impact factor poses significant challenges for its financial viability and might affect submissions in the future.

Encouraging transparency in academic publishing with standardized publication-facts labels can help readers assess scholarly standards quickly and improve research integrity.