Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
sigmoid.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A social space for people researching, working with, or just interested in AI!

Administered by:

Server stats:

605
active users

sigmoid.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.1

#scholcomm

8 posts7 participants0 posts today
Public Knowledge Project

📰 New news blog post: "Why Metadata Enrichment Matters for the Public Knowledge Project" by PKP Scientific Director and Collaborative Metadata Enrichment Taskforce (COMET) Co-Organizer Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander

Learn how and why PKP is deeply involved in efforts, such as COMET, to improve the completeness and accuracy of metadata:

pkp.sfu.ca/2025/07/11/metadata

Public Knowledge Project · Why Metadata Enrichment Matters for the Public Knowledge ProjectLearn why PKP is deeply involved in the Collaborative Metadata initiative (COMET), to improve the completeness and accuracy of metadata.
#Metadata#ScholComm#ScholarlyPublishing
Public Knowledge Project

📢 Don't forget to register for the Collaborative Metadata Enrichment Taskforce (COMET) Community Meeting happening July 15th, 8 AM PDT!

Agenda

🎯 What is the COMET Model?
🎯 Overview of current pilot projects
🎯 Initial project findings
🎯 Discussion time
🎯 Opportunities for involvement

Register: datacite.zoom.us/meeting/regis

ZoomWelcome! You are invited to join a meeting: COMET Community Meeting. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.The COMET Community Meeting includes updates from the COMET team, opportunities for feedback on the roadmap, demonstrations and presentation by COMET community members, and more.
#Metadata#ScholComm#ScholarlyPublishing
Continued thread
*
petersuber

Update. Here are two new bits on this story:
medpagetoday.com/washington-wa

* #NIH director Jay Bhattacharya has been railing against #APCs in conservative news outlets like Charlie Kirk and the Disinformation Chronicle. It looks like opposition to APCs is a warmly received #MAGA talking point. It's almost as if #Republicans supported equity and equitable access but didn't want to use those words.

* The NIH plans to set the APC cap by this by October, at the start of its 2026 fiscal year.

www.medpagetoday.comNIH to Cap How Much Journals Can Charge Authors for Open AccessExact amount still to be determined, agency says
#DefendResearch#OpenAccess#ScholComm
*
petersuber

Most science today is published in countries with low ratings for democracy and freedom of the press.
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/20

"In 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% in 2006…78% of publications in 2024 came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) freedom of press."

The authors took the democracy ratings from Democracy Index…
ourworldindata.org/grapher/dem

…and the freedom of the press ratings from Reporters Without Borders.
rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-fre

bioRxiv · Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of pressDemocracy and freedom of press may affect how science is prioritized, produced, communicated and disseminated. We aimed to map the production of scientific publications worldwide in terms of democracy and freedom of press ratings of countries. Democracy ratings used the Democracy Index in 2024 and in 2006 (when first released by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and Freedom of Press ratings used the 2024 index by Reports Without Borders. The Scopus database was used for publications from each country. Fractional counts were assigned for publications co-authored by authors from different countries. Full articles, reviews, conference papers, books and book chapters were included. In 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% in 2006. There was no correlation between the ratio of publications indexed in 2024 versus 2006 and the absolute or relative change in Democracy Index between 2006 and 2024 (r=0.02 and r=0.00, respectively). 78% of publications in 2024 came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) freedom of press. Proportions of publications originated from countries with problematic or worse situations were 81%, 91%, 61%, 62%, and 63% for political, economic, legislative, sociocultural, and safety/security dimensions, respectively. Results were similar when limited to articles published in 2024 in journals with continuous annual presence in Scopus during 2006-2024. In conclusion, most published science originates from countries struggling or suffering in democracy and/or freedom of press. The deeper causes and implications of this emerging landscape require further study. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.
#Democracy#FreeSpeech#ScholComm
George Macgregor

Yay! Attending the soft launch of the new International #Repositories Directory (IRD), created under the ausprices of @coar_repositories and led by @paulwalk. Kudos to all involved! The IRD presents a long needed superior model of #repository directory maintenance -- much needed to ensure we can leverage the power of networked repositories and build value added services on top of these repositories.

ird.coar-repositories.org/ #COAR #OpenAccess #OpenData #OpenResearch #scholcomm

Continued thread
petersuber

Update. Three past editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (#NEJM) answer the attack on their journal from #RFKJr.
statnews.com/2025/06/30/rfk-jr
(#paywalled)

"Kennedy claimed that one of us (Angell) said, 'We are no longer a science journal, we are a vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda.' In fact, what Angell said in a 2009 article was that 'it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published,' due to researchers’ financial ties with pharmaceutical companies."

The editors also point out that the three journals named by Kennedy happen to have published editorials criticizing the #Trump admin assault of science.

STAT · RFK Jr. says medical journals are ‘corrupt.’ As former NEJM editors, we know he’s wrongRFK Jr.’s plan to circumvent established medical journals smacks more of retaliation than reform, write three former NEJM editors.
#DefendResearch#Medicine#Pharma
*
Public Knowledge Project

▶️ New video out! OJS 3.5 Redesigned Submission Navigation and Dashboard

In 8 minutes learn about:

✨ Submission Dashboard Overview
✨ Navigation Menus and Views
✨ User Specific Views
✨ Filters
✨ Incomplete Submissions
✨ Submission Table
✨ Submission Window
✨ Submission Language
✨ Additional Menu
✨ Suggested Reviewers
✨ Log Reviewer Responses
✨ Contributor Preview
✨ JATS XML

Check it out on YouTube: youtu.be/c9d28VxO7VM

YouTubeOJS 3.5 Submission Navigation and DashboardBy Public Knowledge Project
#OpenJournalSystems#OpenInfrastructure#ScholComm
petersuber

We could applaud #TaylorAndFrancis for pausing submissions at a journal that seems to be publishing a lot of fraudulent papers. Or we could ask why it waited until now.
science.org/content/article/jo
(#paywalled)

"Out of a sample of nearly 900 papers _Bioengineered_ published from 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟬 through 2023, one-quarter showed signs of image manipulation or duplication." (Emphasis added.)

#Misconduct#PaperMills#Publishers
George Macgregor

Another week -- which means another research paper questioning whether #LLMs should go anywhere near the scholarly research process. And the answer is, unsurprisingly, 'no'. #ChatGPT 4.0 and #Bard #hallucinated #references in circa 29% and 91% of cases. But there are many other worrying observations in this study.

Hallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews
doi.org/10.2196/53164 #LLM #scholcomm #AI #search #discovery #hallucinations

Journal of Medical Internet ResearchHallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews: Comparative AnalysisBackground: Large language models (LLMs) have raised both interest and concern in the academic community. They offer the potential for automating literature search and synthesis for systematic reviews but raise concerns regarding their reliability, as the tendency to generate unsupported (hallucinated) content persist. Objective: The aim of the study is to assess the performance of LLMs such as ChatGPT and Bard (subsequently rebranded Gemini) to produce references in the context of scientific writing. Methods: The performance of ChatGPT and Bard in replicating the results of human-conducted systematic reviews was assessed. Using systematic reviews pertaining to shoulder rotator cuff pathology, these LLMs were tested by providing the same inclusion criteria and comparing the results with original systematic review references, serving as gold standards. The study used 3 key performance metrics: recall, precision, and F1-score, alongside the hallucination rate. Papers were considered “hallucinated” if any 2 of the following information were wrong: title, first author, or year of publication. Results: In total, 11 systematic reviews across 4 fields yielded 33 prompts to LLMs (3 LLMs×11 reviews), with 471 references analyzed. Precision rates for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard were 9.4% (13/139), 13.4% (16/119), and 0% (0/104) respectively (P<.001). Recall rates were 11.9% (13/109) for GPT-3.5 and 13.7% (15/109) for GPT-4, with Bard failing to retrieve any relevant papers (P<.001). Hallucination rates stood at 39.6% (55/139) for GPT-3.5, 28.6% (34/119) for GPT-4, and 91.4% (95/104) for Bard (P<.001). Further analysis of nonhallucinated papers retrieved by GPT models revealed significant differences in identifying various criteria, such as randomized studies, participant criteria, and intervention criteria. The study also noted the geographical and open-access biases in the papers retrieved by the LLMs. Conclusions: Given their current performance, it is not recommended for LLMs to be deployed as the primary or exclusive tool for conducting systematic reviews. Any references generated by such models warrant thorough validation by researchers. The high occurrence of hallucinations in LLMs highlights the necessity for refining their training and functionality before confidently using them for rigorous academic purposes.
Continued thread
*
petersuber

1/ The new #NIH #OpenAccess policy takes effect today.
grants.nih.gov/policy-and-comp

Here are a few notable points about the policy.

The NIH has had a mandatory OA policy since 2008. The new policy is a strengthened version that eliminates the permissible embargo. The policy now requires unembargoed or immediate OA, from the date of publication.
grants.nih.gov/faqs#/search/69

This strengthening was required by the #Biden-era #NelsonMemo from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (#OSTP).

Note that Trump has not revoked or weakened the Nelson Memo even though it came out of the Biden White House and uses #DEI language. Nor has he scuttled or weakened any agency policies drafted under its guidance.

That may be baffling. But part of the larger picture is that Trump's own OSTP in his first term drafted a memo similar to the Nelson Memo. It too would have strengthened the federal OA policies by eliminating the embargo.
slate.com/technology/2020/02/a

There may be many reasons why he didn't sign the memo, including the fact that it wasn't finished until near the end of his term when he was caught in impeachment hearings.

🧵

grants.nih.govPublic Access | Grants & Funding
#Funders#Medicine#OAintheUSA
George Macgregor

'Unfair publisher fees for deposit into #repositories highlight the need for #authors to exercise their rights'

New blog post from @coar_repositories once again pushing against the emergence of "publishers [which] are audaciously seeking to monetize funder mandates by making it more difficult and expensive for authors to share their #articles through repositories."

coar-repositories.org/news-upd

COAR · Unfair publisher fees for deposit into repositories highlight the need for authors to exercise their rightsImage: Adobe Stock Image Scientific knowledge is a public good Science and scholarship are about sharing and advancing knowledge, and many open access policies have been diligently designed in orde…
#OpenAccess#OpenResearch#scholcomm
Barcelona Declaration

📢 The Bologna Meeting Report on Open Research Information is now available!

Nearly 200 participants from 35 countries joined us (in the room and online) to advance the @BarcelonaDORI. The report captures key outcomes, showcases implementation journeys, and highlights next steps.

📄 Read it on Zenodo: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15730917
🎥 Morning session video coming soon in our Youtube Channel!

#OpenResearch#OpenMetadata#OpenScience
*
petersuber

#COAR (@coar_repositories) is exactly right about what's wrong with the #ACS and #IEEE demands that their authors pay them a fee for the right to deposit their accepted author manuscripts (#AAMs) in #OpenAccess #repositories.
coar-repositories.org/news-upd

<blockquote>
* The charges applied are completely arbitrary and not based on any real service provision (for example, IEEE applies a fee to authors who want to apply a CC-BY licence to their AAM; and ACM applies a fee for removing the embargo period). They are just another funding stream for publishers that are already making huge profits.
* Deposit fees disadvantage authors who do not have funding to pay
* These fees amount to #DoubleDipping since the final published version of the AAM is made available behind a paywall with no discount
* This practice prevents universities and research organisations from creating an accessible record of their scholarly output.
</blockquote>

And COAR is exactly right about the solution: author #RightsRetention. When authors retain key rights, they don't need publisher permission to deposit their works in OA repositories -- or to use and reuse them in other important ways as well.

PS: See my similar argument on a related ACS move last year.
fediscience.org/@petersuber/11

COAR · Unfair publisher fees for deposit into repositories highlight the need for authors to exercise their rightsImage: Adobe Stock Image Scientific knowledge is a public good Science and scholarship are about sharing and advancing knowledge, and many open access policies have been diligently designed in orde…
#Publishers#Copyright#ScholComm
TrendingLive feeds
About