“a recent #PewResearchCenter study on digital decay found that 38 percent of #webpages accessible in 2013 are not accessible today.

This happens because pages are taken down, #URLs are changed, and entire #websites vanish, as in the case of dozens of #ScientificJournals and all the critical research they contained. This is especially acute for #news”

<https://theverge.com/24321569/internet-decay-link-rot-web-archive-deleted-culture>

Videos from the first joint conference between the Médici, Mir@bel and Repères networks are now available on Canal-U!

On the theme of ‘Working together: networking, why and how?’, these meetings provided an opportunity to highlight the challenges and complementarity of our three networks, while promoting existing collaborations.
Thanks to Ambre Enault for posting this online.

https://www.canal-u.tv/chaines/medici/1res-journees-inter-reseaux-medici-reperes-mirbel-1-3-juillet-2025

#edition #documentation #scientificjournals

Here’s a wee puzzle: A mature Open Data focused journal (“Journal A”), owned and launched by an company or Institute (“Institute B”), developed into the flagship of an Academic Publisher (“Publisher C”), runs their own properly archived and citable blog with DOIs etc (“Blog D”).

If a briefly published editorial Blog Post (“Editorial E”) disappears from their Blog, could it be an accident, or something else?

https://blastedbio.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-case-of-missing-editorial-blog-post.html #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublishing #ScientificJournals #OpenData

Which journal would you recommend to publish a review on the topic of #CognitiveMaps?
Criteria: non-profit, open access, good reputation

#ScientificJournals #OpenAccess #Neuroscience #Psychology #CognitiveMap

"A growing tide of fake papers is flooding the scientific record and proliferating faster than current checks can rid them from the system, scientists warn.

The source of the trouble is “paper mills,” businesses or individuals that charge fees to publish fake studies in legitimate journals under the names of desperate scientists whose careers depend on their publishing record.

The rate of fake papers generated by these operators roughly doubled every 1.5 years between 2016 and 2020, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The entire structure of science could collapse if this is left unaddressed,” said study author Luís Amaral, a physicist at Northwestern University.

Paper mills look for weak links, such as lax verification protocols, in the typically rigorous publication machinery, then exploit those to place hundreds of fabricated studies with vulnerable journals or publishers, according to scientist investigators who have been tracking and cataloging their work.

It can be a costly mess to clean up.

Publishers who have become aware of suspected paper mill activity have been forced to retract hundreds of papers at once, and in some cases shut down journals."

https://www.wsj.com/science/scientific-journals-fake-paper-mills-92e42230

#AI #GenerativeAI #AISlop #AcademicPublishing #PaperMills #ScientificJournals #Science #PeerReview

I will never understand why the authors of a manuscript that they post on a preprint server spontaneously decide that it will be better for whoever reads their manuscript to have not only all the figures at the end, but also separated from the legends?

WHY 😭

(Same question for papers sent to review btw. Most journals allow for the format of your choice for the first submission. WHY not make it a nice, easily readable format??)

#ScientificJournals #ResearchPapers #Academia #Preprint #PeerReview

It used to be that the use of #genAI for #PeerReview was forbidden (at least for anything else other than helping with the language).
I've just checked the policy on this from #Nature and it's now much less clear-cut:

"we ask that, while Springer Nature explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools."

But also:

"If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report."

So.. reviewers can use AI for peer-review, just as long as they don't upload the manuscript? Nature is even exploring ways to provide us with genAI tools? How does that seem scientific in any way? What is happening to the "most reputable"* journal of all?? Why are they submitting so easily to the AI hype???

I will continue not to use genAI for peer-review (or anything else really) and I hope all my colleagues scientists and researchers will do the same, despite our institutions, journals and big corporations pushing so hard for it, as it will degrade the quality of scientific production, and our human ability to reason by ourselves.

Source:
https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/peer-review#ai-use-by-peer-reviewers

(*) I do not believe that Nature papers are better than others just because they're in that journal, but I know that lots of researchers do. For how long though?
#Science #Research #ScientificJournals