Martin Delahunty’s Post

As many academic organizations mandate OA policies and their popularity grows, researchers express support but face hurdles like article processing charges and concerns about legitimacy. How can publishers reshape this landscape? Dive into our latest article to explore best practices and innovative solutions publishers can adopt to shape a seamless OA publication experience for authors. Read the full article here: https://ow.ly/ow4T50Q7OxH #OpenAccess #OpenScience #AcademicPublishing #ScholarlyPublishing #ScholarlyCommunication #ResearchPublication

Scholarly publishers and journals are at the helm, steering academic discourse. But with great power comes great responsibility, and maintaining research integrity lies at the heart of their mission. Publishers invest significant resources in vetting submissions, ensuring technical compliance, language quality, and research integrity. But what if these tasks could be automated to assist editorial desks, giving them an additional layer of assurance about the quality of the research they publish? With over 20 checks for various markers of research integrity alone, Paperpal Preflight for Editorial Desk is here to transform the way journals assess manuscripts. Preflight analyses each manuscript for language quality, technical compliance and research integrity, and assigns a weighted score to the result of each check. The composite score at the end offers a reliable assessment for editors to make informed decisions. For an inside look at how Preflight can revolutionize your editorial efficiency, visit https://ow.ly/TESy50RA8ZI. #ResearchIntegrity #ScholarlyPublishing #EditorialEfficiency #ResearchQuality #AIInScience

Since its launch, Retraction Watch has done much to highlight the value of research integrity and publishing standards. But why is it useful to record retracted academic papers? Discussing the recent acquisition by Crossref of Retraction Watch’s database of retracted articles, Ivan Oransky and Rachael Lammey highlight the value of this data and the difficulties of making it openly and sustainably accessible. https://lnkd.in/ewAdA5DB #researchmethods #research #researchprojects #publishing #academicpublishing

How do we define, track, and measure trust in scholarly publishing? @scholarlykitchn gives this a go with 3 examples: #scholarlypublishing https://zurl.co/P6de

Whereas transitions to #OpenAccess aim to remove reader-facing barriers to scholarly content, the financial sustainability of associated publishing models needs to be demonstrated, given that author-facing fees cannot necessarily offset revenue shortfalls https://ow.ly/KwNS50Pw3XS

Publishing your work in academia has its controversies, as Arash Abizadeh points out in his article in The Guardian. As a university-owned, open-access journal with NO submission or accessing fee at all, our editorial team can relate to Abizadeh's thoughts: "we feel a strong responsibility to help build collective momentum towards a better arrangement: a publishing model that no longer wastes massive amounts of public resources feeding profits to private corporations, secures editorial independence against the pressures of profit-making and makes research available to everyone, free of charge. This isn’t just an academic problem. A revolution in the publishing landscape could also help stem the tide of disinformation and propaganda in the public sphere. Such an alternative is available, but it’s hard to get there. We want to change that." https://lnkd.in/dt2XYXGj

CROSSREF ACQUIRES RETRACTION WATCH DATA AND OPENS IT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY An agreement between the two organisations will allow Retraction Watch to keep the data populated on an ongoing basis and always open, alongside publishers registering their retraction notices directly with Crossref. Both organisations have a shared mission to make it easier to assess the trustworthiness of scholarly outputs. Retractions are an important part of science and scholarship regulating themselves and are a sign that academic publishing is doing its job. But there are more journals and papers than ever, so identifying and tracking retracted papers has become much harder for publishers and readers. That, in turn, makes it difficult for readers and authors to know whether they are reading or citing work that has been retracted. Combining efforts to create the largest single open-source database of retractions reduces duplication, making it more efficient, transparent, and accessible for all. #author #article #editorial #journal #retraction #database #Crossref #Retraction_Watch #technologycenter https://lnkd.in/dgB4AXZY

Predatory publishers also contribute to the erosion of trust in open-access publishing. The unethical practices of predatory publishers can lead to skepticism and reluctance toward open-access journals, even the legitimate ones. https://lnkd.in/dhqZdVX9

CROSSREF ACQUIRES RETRACTION WATCH DATA AND OPENS IT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY   An agreement between the two organisations will allow Retraction Watch to keep the data populated on an ongoing basis and always open, alongside publishers registering their retraction notices directly with Crossref.   Both organisations have a shared mission to make it easier to assess the trustworthiness of scholarly outputs. Retractions are an important part of science and scholarship regulating themselves and are a sign that academic publishing is doing its job. But there are more journals and papers than ever, so identifying and tracking retracted papers has become much harder for publishers and readers. That, in turn, makes it difficult for readers and authors to know whether they are reading or citing work that has been retracted. Combining efforts to create the largest single open-source database of retractions reduces duplication, making it more efficient, transparent, and accessible for all. Source https://lnkd.in/d-b2BMeb   #author #article #editorial #journal #retraction #database #Crossref #Retraction_Watch #technologycenter

CROSSREF ACQUIRES RETRACTION WATCH DATA AND OPENS IT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY An agreement between the two organisations will allow Retraction Watch to keep the data populated on an ongoing basis and always open, alongside publishers registering their retraction notices directly with Crossref. Both organisations have a shared mission to make it easier to assess the trustworthiness of scholarly outputs. Retractions are an important part of science and scholarship regulating themselves and are a sign that academic publishing is doing its job. But there are more journals and papers than ever, so identifying and tracking retracted papers has become much harder for publishers and readers. That, in turn, makes it difficult for readers and authors to know whether they are reading or citing work that has been retracted. Combining efforts to create the largest single open-source database of retractions reduces duplication, making it more efficient, transparent, and accessible for all. #author #article #editorial #journal #retraction #database #Crossref #Retraction_Watch #technologycenter https://lnkd.in/eRC74rci