Hello fellow journalologists,
The weekly Journalology newsletter provides readers with a quick overview of recent events in scholarly publishing. I want to make it easy for you to scan the headlines and quickly get up to speed.
These weekly digests are now being supplemented by essays that analyse the news and explain the trends. I posted the first example on Thursday, which looked at the link between the rise of research output in China and the slowing (perhaps even stalling) of the global open-access transition. If you missed that essay, you can read it here.
News headlines
News & Views: Market Sizing Update 2025 – Has OA recovered its mojo?
We estimate that the OA market grew to just under $2.4bn in 2024, an increase of 6.9% over the previous year. Although an improvement on the low growth the year before, this is still only one quarter of its historic growth rates. OA’s share of output has leveled off – and may stay that way for the next year or two. However, even with that flat output, OA’s share of revenues continues to rise. Authors appear to be choosing slightly higher-priced OA options compared with a few years ago. Hybrid OA is capturing more of the OA mix, yet long-term growth still depends on trends in fully OA output.
JB: Delta Think is hosting a webinar on Tuesday to discuss their findings.
Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
New analysis of open research practices suggests that researchers are increasingly motivated to share their data by factors beyond policy mandates, such as enhanced visibility, impact, and collaboration. The investigation by Taylor & Francis and DataSeer found that over half of authors included a Data Availability Statement (DAS) in their journal article, explaining whether and how readers can access data, and a third of researchers in some disciplines openly shared their data.
JB: You can read the report here: Moving the needle on open data: A new study from Taylor & Francis
AI-powered fraud: Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research
Chinese paper mills are using generative artificial intelligence tools to mass produce forged academic papers, a new investigation by the mainland’s state broadcaster has found. The report, which aired Sunday on China Central Television’s (CCTV) “Financial Investigation” programme, found paper mill workers using generative AI chatbots to help them each complete over 30 academic articles a week.
New academic publishing deals ‘still too costly’ for UK universities
New proposals by Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley and Sage were sent to universities recently after their initial offers were decisively rejected by institutions in a sector-wide consultation run by Jisc, which is negotiating jointly with Universities UK on behalf of universities. Universities are seeking price reductions of between 5 and 15 per cent on the £112 million spent annually with these publishing houses, whose current deals expire at the end of 2025.
Institutions move to provide data now found in CDC MMWR journal
In the latest bid to plug gaps in the federal government’s public health infrastructure, two institutions are coming together to create an alternative to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaunted Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report — often called “the voice of the CDC.” The New England Journal of Medicine and the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy will begin publishing “public health alerts” in the coming month, CIDRAP Director Michael Osterholm announced at the IDWeek conference on Sunday.
JB: NEJM is not launching a new journal:
A spokesperson for NEJM said the alerts would be published in a new section of its NEJM Evidence journal as needed — as opposed to being published on a weekly basis — and be made available for free.
1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds
More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published. That’s one conclusion of a study surveying 982 chemistry researchers who were the corresponding authors of at least two papers published in journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry or the American Chemical Society between 2020 and 2023.
JB: You can read the research article here.
Other news
Publishing integrity
Despite new retractions, suspect organ transplant papers remain in the literature
Six years after researchers called for the retraction of more than 400 papers about organ transplantation amid suspicion the organs used in the studies came from executed Chinese prisoners, journals are still working to clear the record. Although more than 40 papers were retracted or otherwise flagged shortly after the 2019 study was published, by our count, only 44 of the 445 papers have been retracted to date. At least 17 of the articles marked with expressions of concern in 2019-2020 remain as such.
Next-Level Western Blot Duplicate Detection
To improve detection, we analysed thousands of Western Blot duplicates identified on PubPeer. These real-world cases helped us understand recurring patterns and highlighted situations where conventional algorithms struggled. From this foundation, we worked closely with research integrity experts to assemble a large, curated dataset of Western Blot duplicates. This became the basis for training a new machine learning model, purpose-built for this image type.
AI tools combat paper mill fraud in scientific publishing as peer review system struggles
But although AI and automated tools can significantly improve the detection of fraudulent papers before (and after) they are published, some experts believe that their use is analogous to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ‘We need to be more honest about how strained the system is and how it’s not doing what everybody says it’s doing and wants it to do,’ says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a website that tracks retractions of scientific papers and other ethical issues in science publishing. Fixing the capacity problem – by publishing fewer peer reviewed papers – is the only way to regain the integrity of the peer review process, he adds. ‘We need to have fewer peer reviewed papers,’ but this doesn’t mean publishing less, he clarifies, but making more use of pre-print servers instead where peer review isn’t required.
JB: I agree with Ivan. A lot of niche or low value research should be published on preprint servers and be informally reviewed by the appropriate community. The current situation is untenable and unnecessary.
How to spot fake scientists and stop them from publishing papers
But such identity checks risk excluding scholars who do not work at a known institution, as well as early-career researchers and individuals in low- and middle-income countries who do not have institutional e-mails, says Adya Misra, associate director of research integrity at Sage Publications in Liverpool, UK. Journal editors might not feel comfortable playing ‘immigration officers’, checking identities for every submission. “What we lack as an industry is standards on what we consider to be a verified researcher,” says Misra.
JB: This news feature provides a good overview of the topic.
AIP Publishing joins the STM Integrity Hub to advance research integrity efforts
AIP Publishing is pleased to join the STM Integrity Hub, a collaborative platform developed to help publishers detect potential threats to research integrity—especially those associated with paper mills.
JB: The STM Integrity Hub is a good example of how publishers can collaborate as well as compete.
Notice on Fraudulent Websites Impersonating MDPI
MDPI is aware that fraudulent websites, such as imdpi.com, imitate our brand by using similar domain names and journal titles. These websites are designed to mislead authors into submitting manuscripts or paying fees under false pretenses.
JB: This kind of thing happens a lot. Thankfully, the world has lawyers.
Artificial Intelligence
The Citation Advantage of AI-Related Publications
Do AI-related publications attract greater academic attention, as measured by citations, than comparable research in the same fields and journals? This essay explores that question by analyzing recent AI-related publications and their performance on field- and journal-normalized citation indicators, as well as by discussing the potential reasons for this citation advantage and the challenges it presents for the research community.
A practical blueprint for legal and ethical AI research
When members of Reddit’s r/schizophrenia discovered their posts had been analysed in a published paper – despite their community’s explicit rule requiring prior approval for research – the backlash was swift. Imagine sharing your mental health struggles in what feels like a supportive space, only to find your words became data without anyone asking the community first. The subsequent retraction wasn’t just about legality; it was about legitimacy, community expectations, and trust.
EDP Sciences updates its policy on AI and ethics
EDP Sciences has updated its policy on Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, setting out clear principles for the responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies across all stages of the publishing process. The updated policy, now part of EDP Sciences’ Publishing Policies & Ethics, provides practical guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors while reinforcing the publisher’s commitment to integrity, transparency, and human accountability in scientific publishing. It distinguishes between acceptable uses of AI, for example, language editing under human supervision, and those that are prohibited, such as the use of generative AI for creating images or conducting confidential peer reviews.
Elsevier’s ScienceDirect AI wins Best Generative AI solution at the 2025 CODiE Awards
ScienceDirect AI is an innovative workflow tool that enables academic and corporate researchers to instantly surface, cite, compare and explore trusted evidence from deep within the peer-reviewed literature. It generates instant accurate research summaries and highlights key findings, while providing references to support reproducibility and the integrity of research. In testing with users worldwide, ScienceDirect AI was shown to cut time spent on literature research by approximately 50%.
Platforms and technology
Errors in document-type classification: a focus on engineering publications and their publishers
This study investigates document-type (DT) classification errors—such as misclassifications of research articles, reviews, conference proceedings, editorials, etc.—in the bibliometric databases Scopus and Web of Science, focusing on the field of engineering. Such misclassifications can adversely affect academic research and research quality assessments, with potential repercussions on researchers’ careers and the allocation of funding in academic institutions.
JB: The error rate was around 2%, which isn’t as bad as I thought it might be. If you do market sizing work, you may want to bookmark this paper.
CSIRO Publishing Launches Unified Content Platform with Silverchair
CSIRO Publishing has announced the launch of its extensive content corpus on the Silverchair Platform. The new site, ConnectSci, brings together CSIRO Publishing’s ebook and journal content, and introduces a science news service, offering a comprehensive and seamless experience for users.
JB: If you live in the northern hemisphere and haven’t heard of CSIRO it describes itself as “Australia’s national science agency and innovation catalyst”. You can access the ConnectSci platform here.
Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors
The h-index — a widely used measure of impact based on publications and citation count over time — treats all of an author’s papers equally, irrespective of whether they are a first, last or middle author. A browser extension called GScholarLens now aims to change that for Google Scholar users. Launched earlier this year for the Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox browsers, the tool provides a weighted metric, called the Scholar h-index (Sh-index), which accounts for a researcher’s position in author lists.
JB: Gulp. This can’t possibly go wrong.
Open access and open research
“Yes” to Transparent Service Fees, “No” to Fees That Charge Authors to Exercise Their Rights
This fee-for-service model disentangles two core functions that current business models conflate: author-facing appraisal and reader-facing curation. Because appraisal is initiated by authors, it is reasonable for them or their institutions to cover its cost, while readers fund curation, for example through subscription paywalls.
JB: This essay, written by Bodo Stern from HHMI, takes to task two society publishers for their commercial response to the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy. The RRS is based on very shaky foundations, in my opinion. Regardless, Bodo’s proposal to disentangle the role of journals is very similar to the “Newspaper journals” and “Recorder journals” concept that Robbie Fox described in 1965. What goes around comes around.
From niche model to publishing standard
OA has been part of my (and Springer Nature’s) DNA for over 20 years. When BMC was acquired by Springer Nature it felt like a great validation for what we were doing – OA was something worth investing in and was going to be viable and scalable. Moving into Springer Nature and being part of some of the great OA milestones we have had – flipping Nature Communications to OA, signing the first ever TA in 2015, reaching our 50% of primary research articles published OA – we’ve consistently pushed boundaries and worked with our community to ensure that all those who want to publish OA and benefit from the reach and engagement it brings, can do so. These milestones weren’t just strategic – they were driven by a belief in the power of openness to accelerate discovery and solve global challenges.
JB: This essay was written by Carrie Webster, a former colleague of mine who is leaving Springer Nature this week after two decades working there. This essay is a swan song of sorts.
Carrie spent much of her time working on transformative agreements; this extract caught my eye:
Transformative agreements (TAs) have been one of the most effective tools for scaling OA. They provide a structured, scalable way to support researchers and institutions in making the transition. We have seen great growth in TAs over the last ten years, starting within Europe, but quickly expanding globally – our signed agreements including US, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, Egypt, Portugal, Greece, Japan and Australia.
There’s one notable country missing from this list: China. The implications of this are important, as the essay I sent you on Thursday explains.
EIFL guide for publishers of Diamond open access journals
We’ve revised and updated our guide to support publishers of Diamond open access (OA) journals to enhance the quality of their journals and to encourage alignment with established best practices in scholarly publishing.
New tool to report on completeness of Open Research Information globally
Crossref, the open scholarly infrastructure nonprofit, today releases an enhanced dashboard showing metadata coverage and individual organisations’ contributions to documenting the process and outputs of scientific research in the open.
Ask the Chefs: Who Owns Our Knowledge?
If we’re talking about ownership of knowledge, I think of information writ large, and find it hard to argue that information is not inherently a shared public asset. However, if we’re talking about ownership of content, I think of information products and services, which I find hard to argue should be free — because they’re not! And I think the evolution of OA business models proves that free and open are not synonymous.
JB: What was missing for me in this discussion among the chefs was an acknowledgment that there’s good knowledge and bad knowledge. Bad knowledge could include the output of paper mills etc., but it also includes under-powered studies or papers with flawed methodology. We need a filter to help us to identify good knowledge and then build upon it. Do we want to “own” a sea of AI-generated slop?
DEIA
From Language Barrier to AI Bias: The Non-Native Speaker’s Dilemma in Scientific Publishing
Editors-in-Chief, in particular, are the crucial link between researchers, reviewers, and publishers. By applying journal-level policies, the use of AI, setting language expectations, and supporting EAL authors, they can make the biggest difference. An Editor-in-Chief who instructs reviewers to judge science before style, or who ensures affordable editing support, actively shifts the culture toward equity. Without their leadership and the support from the publishers, policy statements remain good intentions.
When ‘Diverse Citations’ Replace Diverse Ideas
Within academia, a new metric of “diversity” may be gaining traction—not in admissions, faculty hiring, or funding, but in the references of research. Nature Reviews Psychology shared their new journal guidelines on “citation diversity statements” in which authors should “draw attention to citation imbalances” among scientists from different demographic backgrounds, and “confirm that they made efforts to cite publications from a diverse group of researchers.” Unfortunately, citation diversity statements reduce scholars to statistics, threaten academic rigor, and add yet another ideologically conformist hoop for academics to jump through.
JB: This response was mild in tone compared with another essay castigating the same editorial: Why I no longer engage with Nature publishing group.
Unfortunately, the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favor of advancing a social justice agenda. The group has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favor of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process. The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion; this assessment does not match my experiences with the Nature Portfolio over the years.
The Nature Reviews Psychology editorial notes:
The aim of asking authors to consider citation diversity is not to require a specific level of representation for different groups in the reference list. Rather, we hope that our request serves as a nudge for authors to slow down and take the time to survey the field prior to writing, rather than relying on the same articles (and by extension, authors) that they have historically cited and therefore ‘come to mind’ first.
Asking authors to avoid only citing their buddies does not feel like a radical suggestion. I’m not convinced that a formal statement needs to be included in the review, though.
November 2025 Community of Practice Call – Career support and professional development
The next C4DISC Community of Practice call will be held on both November 3 and November 5, 2025. We are trialing hosting calls twice to accommodate more schedules and time zones. You may join one or both calls.
Sales and marketing
Elsevier, a global leader in advanced information and decision support in science and healthcare, is expanding its Geographical Pricing for Open Access (GPOA) initiative to an additional 150 gold open access journals, following the success of its 2024 pilot. This expansion means around 300 journals will offer pricing based on geography to help authors in low- and middle-income countries publish their research open access.
Maximizing Submissions Through Targeted Author Marketing
Timing analysis reveals that midweek deployments consistently outperform other scheduling options. Wednesday emerges as the optimal day for both clicks and opens, followed closely by Tuesday and Thursday. This data reflects when researchers are most likely to engage with professional communications during their working week. The traffic team continuously monitors these patterns across different subject categories and promotion types, providing clients with actionable insights for optimizing future campaign strategies.
JB: Perhaps I should send these emails on Wednesdays?!?
The Company of Biologists Selects Hum’s Alchemist Engage for AI-Driven Engagement
By coupling Hum’s real-time intelligence engine with the Company’s century-long archive of multidisciplinary biology, the partnership will improve reader and author experience by surfacing razor-sharp article recommendations, spotlighting tailor-made calls-for-papers, and guiding authors toward the most relevant open-access routes.
Wiley (NYSE: WLY), a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence, today announced the renewal of its multi-year publishing partnership with the British Educational Research Association (BERA). The five-year agreement, which extends through 2030, builds on the partnership between both organizations to publish distinguished journals focused on educational research.
Celebrating our first year of Subscribe to Open
This Open Access Week we’re celebrating our milestone year in our open access (OA) journey. 2025 marks the inaugural year of our Subscribe to Open (S2O) model, allowing us to offer fee-free OA publishing across five of our titles for this year.
Careers
The rapid rise of the unconventional academic medicine scholar
Influence no longer correlates neatly with tenure or H-index. A single widely read article in a venue like STAT, the Atlantic, or a respected blog can shape clinical thinking or public opinion as much as a systematic review. A researcher who builds a well-used open-source tool or publishes an accessible explainer video may make a more immediate contribution to practice than one whose work resides behind paywalls.
JB: Oh yes, we definitely need more influencers and fewer systematic reviewers [head in hands].
Insights from the SSP Organizational Compensation and Benefits Study
Salary transparency and benefits benchmarking are critical for professionals navigating their careers and for organizations making strategic HR decisions. Until now, there hasn’t been a dedicated, field-specific dataset for our community. We wanted to change that. The study is designed to run annually, giving us an evolving picture of the industry and a way to track progress over time. Data collection for the 2025 cycle is open now and will run through March 31, 2026.
And finally…
I first read C.P. Snow’s 1959 classic The Two Cultures when I worked at The Lancet in the early 2000s. This essay from last month argues that the balance of power has shifted since 1959 from the humanities to the sciences.
And now, as science triumphs, the divide remains, indeed it has probably even widened. It has changed direction, not closed. Now it is the humanities that live in the shadows. Literature is seen as a luxury. Philosophy as a dead end. History as a hobby, pursued on Substack. We have trained a generation of engineers who build machines but cannot tell you why wars start, how they end, or what justice means. We have raised data analysts who can model a pandemic but cannot explain the human cost of fear and isolation.
Until next time,
James