There are important side notes.
The discussion points to the general problem of inaccurate citations in the scientific literature, e.g., via research
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-025-00173-z
and proposals to track them
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-020-00099-8
And it alerts to 'stealth corrections', “post-publications changes, without providing any indication that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered” (from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1660)
#StealthCorrection #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #ResearchIntegrity
Background Quotations are crucial to science but have been shown to be often inaccurate. Quotation errors, that is, a reference not supporting the authors’ claim, may still be a significant issue in scientific medical writing. This study aimed to examine the quotation error rate and trends over time in the medical literature. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and reference lists for quotation error studies in medicine and without date or language restrictions identified 46 studies analyzing 32,000 quotations/references. Literature search, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two raters. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to analyze error rates and trends (protocol pre-registered on OSF). Results 16.9% (95% CI: 14.1%-20.0%) of quotations were incorrect, with approximately half classified as major errors (8.0% [95% CI: 6.4%-10.0%]). Heterogeneity was high, and Egger’s test for small study effects remained negative throughout. Meta-regression showed no significant improvement in quotation accuracy over recent years (slope: -0.002 [95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02], p = 0.85). Neither risk of bias, nor the number of references were statistically significantly associated with total error rate, but journal impact factor was: Spearman’s ρ = –0.253 (p = 0.043, binomial test, N = 25). Conclusions Quotation errors remain a problem in the medical literature, with no improvement over time. Addressing this issue requires concerted efforts to improve scholarly practices and editorial processes.
Too Many Tables, Too Little Progress
With the proliferation of industry groups working in parallel not partnership toward the same goal, there is often very little movement on publishing pain points. In this piece, longtime publishing executive Michael Cairns reflects on his experience, making a case for consolidating publishing's trade and standards organizations.
The post Too Many Tables, Too Little Progress appeared first on Publishing Perspectives.
https://publishingperspectives.com/2026/05/too-many-tables-too-little-progress/
📚 FRIAS Alumnus Collins C. Ajibo (University of Nigeria) and Yenkong Ngangjoh Hodu (University of Manchester) published a critical analysis of regional trade agreements (RTAs) in the Global South with Cambridge University Press.
The book, titled “Regional Trade Agreements, Prosperity and the Global South”, examines four regional trade agreements (RTAs) – the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA), while exploring the gap between ambition and implementation in regional economic integration.
🔗 Book details (Cambridge University Press): https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/regional-trade-agreements-prosperity-and-the-global-south/E17F4EA378272B3ED0FBB9992C829BF9
🔗 Collins C. Ajibo (FRIAS Fellow Profile): https://uni-freiburg.de/frias/prof-dr-chikodili-collins-ajibo/
#FRIASBookHighlights #CollinsAjibo #TradeLaw #AfCFTA #RegionalIntegration #InternationalLaw #CambridgeUniversityPress #Research #AcademicPublishing
NBC News: Fake academic journals are publishing AI-generated papers under real professors’ names . “A network of fake academic journals masquerading as legitimate publications has published more than a hundred AI-generated papers in recent months, in some cases using the names of real professors at top universities without their knowledge.”
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/05/26/nbc-news-fake-academic-journals-are-publishing-ai-generated-papers-under-real-professors-names/
NBC News: Fake academic journals are publishing AI-generated papers under real professors’ names . “A network of fake academic journals masquerading as legitimate publications has published m…
. @alexh talked about letters rejecting #PeerReview requests for specific publishers, e.g., here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexholcombe_declining-another-review-request-from-an-share-7426356814121689088-N0Kz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD0JHkBcK9LoDUuScfOpFwbt_UMALGWLV8
@priyasilverstein discussed the role of editors in #OpenScience, and offered the example of the guide for #SocialScience journal editors on easing into #OpenScience
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
#JEDI #JournalEditing #AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor
Declining another review request from an academic at an Elsevier journal. Hope my attempt at a dispassionate tone keeps my contempt for Elsevier from leaking through. | 34 comments on LinkedIn
RE: https://fediscience.org/@alexh/116518145538497476
This was really interesting 👏
Some slides from the event have been posted here:
https://zenodo.org/communities/muecos/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest
And some of the resources and topics that came up 👇
The #ECR reviewer's platform aims to empower junior reviewers and equip #ECRs with the necessary skills to conduct methodologically rigorous reviews
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
#PostGraduate #PGR
#AcademicPublishing #NightshiftEditor #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity
Second desk-rejection for my I-Field Theory manuscript from Foundations of Physics (same editor), again without technical feedback or peer review.
Rejections without reasons prevent productive dialogue and make it impossible to address concerns I don't know about.
The paper remains on Zenodo for anyone who wants to engage with the physics: https://zenodo.org/records/20390108
#Physics #TheoreticalPhysics #SpringerNature #OpenScience #AcademicPublishing #Entropy #FoundationsOfPhysics
We present the I-field: a classical scalar field minimally coupled to matter whose equation of motion contains an explicit time-asymmetric dissipation term, derived from the Euler-Lagrange-Rayleigh (ELR) formalism [@rayleigh1877]. The field does not modify the gravitational sector: Einstein's field equations are unchanged, and the total stress-energy tensor of matter plus I-field is covariantly conserved. In the limit $\gamma \to 0$ the theory reduces exactly to standard classical field theory. The dissipation term $\gamma u^\mu \partial_\mu \mathcal{I}$, where $u^\mu$ is the four-velocity of the cosmological rest frame and $\gamma > 0$ is a coupling constant, is odd under time reversal while every term derived from a Lagrangian is even. This explicit breaking of time-reversal symmetry at the level of the field equation --- rather than through boundary conditions or statistical postulates --- has three consequences derived as theorems within the framework: 1. The I-field carries a covariant entropy production density $\sigma_{\mathcal{I}} = \gamma\dot{\mathcal{I}}^2 \geq 0$ pointwise, establishing the second law of thermodynamics as a field-theoretic identity rather than a postulate. 2. The energy transferred from matter to the I-field is strictly non-negative, providing a microscopic account of dissipation without invoking a heat bath or environment. 3. The preferred time direction is globally well-defined, identified with the cosmological rest frame in which the cosmic microwave background is isotropic [@fixsen2009]. The theory is self-contained and makes no modifications to the gravitational sector. The framework provides a minimal, classical extension of standard field theory in which irreversibility is fundamental rather than
Jan R. Boehnke
Martin Urschel
Dr. G. Power
RaymondPierreL3
IndieAuthors.Social News
FRIAS_UFreiburg
ResearchBuzz: Firehose
FundamentalTime