Scientific dysfunction publishes that your article is appropriately obtained from two forces (The quality of papers of science was questioned as academics ‘overrated’ in millions published, 13 July) – Researchers have been stimulated to publish as many times as possible and publishers have made a lot of money when they publish a lot of paper.
The artificial intelligence doesn’t fix it. Leasing many papers faster with us in this place. Due to current incentives, the meaning of AI means it is faster. A paper written by AI, checked by peers by AI and read only AI that makes a self-refincing loop with no real value, no confidence in science. survey driven by our surprise in the world. That should be centered in any scientific publishing reform.
However, driving forces can be answered in two steps. Incentives for researchers can and must prioritize quality, and means to metrics. And the rulers of the publishers (seeking the use of more than 30%) can and should be rejected by payers. Incentives and contracts with publishers are governed by researchers – university, research councils and foundations. Their welcome attempts to participate in these problems by Plan sthat aims to make access to research publications, unsuccessful because publishers have taken them their benefit, making more profits.
There are examples, often more than the global north, in scientific publications that do not target profits for publishers. Scieling (which is centered in Latin America) USA, and the global diamond Open Access Alliane Champions is mainly. We can learn a lot from them. Research is in a more state of the world speaking English – risk for the facts it says US, and for British costs. Funders have radio power to change incentive scientists and lower the rents obtained by publishers.
And brockington
Icrea (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies)
Paolo Crosetto
Grogble used economy economy
Pablo Gomez Barreiro
SCIENCE AND LABORATORIES, KEW GARDENS
Your article on the over-number of scientific papers that correctly promote a system forced. But deep dysfunction is not only in size, but the economy of scholarly, in which publishers cash in the journeers. The academic market market is transferred to the public research funds to the shareholder’s profit.
Open access is intended to democrormize knowledge, but its original view is chosen by commercial publishers. It’s biomed central (now Sprinder-attribute) first introducing the “author pay” model to remove income streams. In case of article processing (APC) present the dominant open-access model, authors often pay between £ 2,000 and the cost of doing it does not exceed £ 1,000.
Some of us attended the new royal society conference In the future of publishing science, where the vice-present, Sir Mark Walport, reminds listeners who do not get the authors and readers, someone needs to pay for bills.
We argue that there is enough money in the system, allowing the leading publishers such as others to create profit margins of 38%. Our most recent estimates show that Researchers pay near $ 9bn in APC of six publishers of 2019-23, with an annual amount of time tripling in five years. This most recent estimates are more likely than $ 1bn estimate for 2015-18 mentioned in your article.
As further emphasis on Royal society Meeting, publishers Modi is the current role that the journal prestige is playing hiring, promotion and funds. Therefore, to make open access to lasting and stopping these business practices, it is important to change academic examination.
Stefanie Haustein
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa; Co-director, communications lab scholars
Eric Schares
Library and Library Libraries, University Library, Iowa State University
Leigh-Ann Butler
Scholarly communication librarian, University of Ottawa
Juan Pablo Alperin
Associate Professor, School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University; Scientific science, public knowledge project
The academic publication of the seams. Many articles have been published and many journals are not adding true value. Researchers have been stimulated to publish the quantity of quality, and some journal publishers benefit from it. It avoids it from the best, changing the world and more access to research that we need to improve – and that quality publishers cultivate.
Generative AI scaled these pressures, as shown in your article. Someone needs to be changed. That is why Cambridge University Press spent the last months involved in researchers, librarions, officials of the whole research published in autumn.
Generative AI focuses on or with quality journals that are not adequate insufficient. We need an underlying system that has been reviewed and re-related the relationship between publication, reward and recognition; Equity research research; Research integrity; and one who heals the technology change.
The system is about to separate. We need creative thinking and commitment from all players to fix it and build better.
Mandy Hill
Director Management, Cambridge University Press
