Login
Shamsi Brinn (UX Manager at arXiv) and Bill Kasdorf (Principal of Kasdorf & Associates, LLC) discuss the recent Accessibility Forum hosted by arXiv. Over 2,000 people registered for the Forum; over 350 attended the live event; and hundreds more are accessing the recently published videos.
The post Guest Post — Making Research Accessible: The arXiv Accessibility Forum Moved the Action Upstream appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
"Researchers have only so many hours in a day; if they can spend one less hour on a research article because we have implemented improved workflows and better technology, that’s one more hour they can spend on research to try to save my life, and the lives of all ALS patients." In today's post, Bruce Rosenblum shares his experience as a clinical trial participant and how that contributed to scholarly publications.
The post Guest Post — Being Research Data appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
The post Guest Post — A Year of Jxiv – Warming the Preprints Stone appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Does the author-read audiobook offer a perfect confluence between person, authorial persona, voice, and aesthetic form?
The post Finding Your “Voice”: Author-Read Audiobooks appeared first on Public Books.
What does the decline of the English major mean for society at large, and university presses in particular?
The post Fallout from the Implosion of Humanities Enrollments appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Wiley's Jay Flynn discusses the impact that paper mills had on Hindawi's publishing program and how all stakeholders must collaborate to address behaviors that undermine research integrity.
The post Guest Post — Addressing Paper Mills and a Way Forward for Journal Security appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Avi Staiman discusses the value that ChatGPT can bring to scholarly communication, particularly leveling the playing field for English as an Additional Language authors.
The post Guest Post — Academic Publishers Are Missing the Point on ChatGPT appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Reporting on a Mellon-funded open access monograph pilot, UNC Press Director John Sherer notes successes and remaining challenges.
The post Guest Post — Open Access for Monographs is Here. But Are we Ready for It? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Modern "word processing" programs can do everything from check spelling and grammar to finishing your sentences for you. This might be convenient for the creator, but some "helpful" upgrades can wreak havoc for manuscript editors. In today's Guest Post, Bruce Rosenblum and Sylvia Izzo Hunter explore the pitfalls of making the comments features less editor friendly.
The post Guest Post — Modern Comments and Their Discontents: When an Update Isn’t an Improvement appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Is the OA movement painting itself into a corner with concerns about new OA rules and regulations?
The post The Ivies (Plus) Have Concerns about the Nelson OSTP Memo appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Thilo Koerkel presents a new publication, aimed filling the gap between the popular science magazine Scientific American and the highly technical specialist language of research journals. How potentially useful is this approach?
The post Guest Post — Open Access Beyond Scholarly Journals appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
The post Guest Post — Article Processing Charges are a Heavy Burden for Middle-Income Countries appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Alan Harvey from Stanford University Press discusses their evolving strategy in turbulent times.
The post Guest Post — In Tough Times the Key is to Think Differently appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose standards inform the policies and practices of many philosophy journals and their publishers, has declared that “AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper.”
[Manipulation of Caravaggio’s “Saint Jerome Writing” by J. Weinberg]
AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements.
Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.
COPE’s position matches up with that of Nature and other publications (see this previous post). (via Brian Earp)
In response to Nature’s earlier announcement, philosophers Ryan Jenkins and Patrick Lin of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University, raised some concerns about this kind of “simple policy”. In their report, “AI-Assisted Authorship: How to Assign Credit in Synthetic Scholarship“, they write:
Nature argues that crediting AI writers in the acknowledgements serves the goal of transparency. While this may be true in many cases, it could also help to hide or grossly understate the role and substantial contributions of AI writers to the paper, which is counterproductive to transparency.
Nature also argues AI writers should not be credited as authors on the grounds that they cannot be accountable for what they write. This line of argument needs to be considered more carefully. For instance, authors are sometimes posthumously credited, even though they cannot presently be held accountable for what they said when alive, nor can they approve of a posthumous submission of a manuscript; yet it would clearly be hasty to forbid the submission or publication of posthumous works.
Thus, a more nuanced, middle-ground solution may be needed, as satisfying as a simple policy might be.
Jenkins and Lin suggest framing the matter around two questions.
The first concerns what they call “continuity”:
How substantially are the contribution of AI writers carried through to the final product? To what extent does the final product resemble the contributions of AI? What is the relative contribution from AI versus a human? The calculations are always difficult, even if the coauthors are human. Some journals routinely require statements of relative contribution to add clarity and nuance when multiple humans are sharing credit.
The second concerns what they call “creditworthiness”:
Is this the kind of product a human author would normally receive credit for? Consider whether the AI’s contributions would typically result in academic or professional credit for a human author. This analysis is similar to how we view student assistants: the greater the substance of their contribution to the final product, and the greater the extent to which this kind of product typically redounds to the credit of the author, the more important it is to credit the range of contributors, both human and artificial.
You can read their report here.
Danny Kingsley suggests that research integrity begins with the training researchers receive at university. Achieving Open Research and increasing reproducibility requires systematic research training that focuses specifically on research practice.
The post Guest Post: Start at the Beginning – The Need for ‘Research Practice’ Training appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
A compilation of links and a video to incisive analyses of ChatGPT and what it means for the future.
The post Thinking About ChatGPT and the Future — Where Are We On AI’s Development Curve? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
The post Guest Post — Are We Providing What Researchers Need in the Transition to Open Science? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
The post Guest Post — Enabling Trustable, Transparent, and Efficient Submission and Review in an Era of Digital Transformation appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
A recap of a recent SSP webinar on artificial intelligence (AI) and scholarly publishing. How can this set of technologies help or harm scholarly publishing, and what are some current trends? What are the risks of AI, and what should we look out for?
The post Guest Post – AI and Scholarly Publishing: A View from Three Experts appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
FreshRSS 