"Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-up citations."
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/06/30/springer-nature-book-on-machine-learning-is-full-of-made-up-citations/

PS: Will this kind of slipshod practice decline on its own? Or does it require public shaming? I don't know. But I'm grateful to @retractionwatch for turning on its spotlight.

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: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15730917
Morning session video coming soon in our Youtube Channel!

#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.
https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/

<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.
https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/112688754504974477

_Mathematical Logic Quarterly_ (pub'd by #Wiley) has been the official journal of the Deutsche Vereinigung für Mathematische Logik und für Grundlagenforschung der exakten Wissenschaften (DVMLG). The DVMLG was initially happy with Wiley for respecting its editorial independence. But in an April open letter it charges "that the attitudes and procedures of Wiley have changed considerably in the last few years and that commercial and profit-oriented interests are now influencing the editorial process negatively." DVMLG will not renew with Wiley when the current contract expires at the end of 2025.
https://www.dvmlg.de/documents/dvmlg_wiley_openletter.pdf

And BTW, the DVMLG wants its journal to be #DiamondOA.

Very interesting results of #AAAS survey on researcher positions on #OpenLicenses. Note that I'm over 70.
https://www.aaas.org/news/interests-concerns-and-knowledge-gaps-around-open-licenses

<blockquote>
* 42% of respondents — when asked what they prefer to do with #CCBY licensed content where they use it themselves— mentioned actions that don’t necessarily require this license, like reading work, or sharing it in the classroom.
* 29% of respondents say there should be no limitations on the #reuse of peer-reviewed research at all, with those older than 70 years of age feeling most strongly.
* 28% of respondents were concerned about reuses of work with a CC-BY license, largely related to possible misrepresentations of their work. Some cited concerns about misuse of their data for political gain.
* In general, younger researchers were slightly more concerned than their older counterparts about potential downstream misuses of their work.
* With respect to commercial reuses of published work, about 36% indicated that there are cases that excite them, while roughly 63% indicated that there are cases that worry them. The latter group’s concerns relate to the possibility of misrepresentation by media and other groups or individuals; use by unsanctioned entities seeking to make a profit; and training of #AI models without proper attribution.
</blockquote>

An editorial in _Microbial Biotechnology_ argues that journals aiming to maximize the number of papers published, in part to maximize #APCs, are "promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing–editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its “truthfulness”. Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem."
https://enviromicro-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1751-7915.70180

Since the authors don't mention it, I'll mention that non-APC #OpenAccess (#DiamondOA) journals don't create this problem or even carry the risk.

The Royal Society of Chemistry (#RSC) just issued a vague and puzzling statement about its plans.
https://www.rsc.org/news/our-evolving-approach-to-open-access

It once planned to convert all its journals to #OpenAccess by 2028. By which it apparently meant #APC-based OA. But after talking with customers in different parts of the world, it learned that some regions "are not yet ready for fully OA." By which it means APC-based OA. "The resounding message we heard over and over is that one size cannot fit all." By which it means that not all can pay APCs.

"It became clear that we needed to adapt our vision for openness to account for a landscape that is increasing in complexity and no longer coalescing around a single direction for open research." As if the global landscape had ever coalesced around support for APCs.

But RSC is still committed to some kind of transition to OA. "We are now shaping our future OA approach to support authors in ways that suit them best in a local context."

If it plans to support no-APC forms of OA, it carefully avoids saying so. It never mentions #GreenOA and never endorses #DiamondOA. (It mentions one diamond OA initiative in Africa, but it's not an RSC initiative.)

I'm guessing that it plans to rely on locally customized #ReadAndPublish agreements. (I've argued that all such agreements use APCs in disguise.) But if so, why not say so? If it has other models in mind for regions "not ready" for APC-based OA, why not say what they are?

I'm not surprised that papers get a citation boost by mentioning #AI.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03355-9

But this result might not be AI-specific. It might be a special case of a more general phenomenon in which papers get a citation boost by mentioning any hot topic of the day.

If so, this phenomenon would explain and encourage deeper diving into those hot topics, on the merits, i.e. good research. But it would also explain and encourage social pressure to talk about those hot topics, without depth or without regard to the merits, i.e. fad thinking.

I just added the results of a 17th survey to my growing summary, "Which pockets pay APCs?"
https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9

Hallucinating #GoldStandard science

"The #MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist."
https://www.notus.org/health-science/make-america-healthy-again-report-citation-errors

"Health Secretary #RFKJr says his “Make America Healthy Again” Commission report harnesses “gold-standard” science, citing more than 500 studies and other sources to back up its claims. Those citations, though, are rife with errors, from broken links to misstated conclusions. Seven of the cited sources don’t appear to exist at all."

"#RFKJr threatens to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals. The health secretary said the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet are in bed with #pharma."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/rfk-jr-nih-scientists-medical-journals-jama-lancet-nejm-00371349

Note that two of the three have published editorials criticizing the #censorship of science under the #Trump admin:

* JAMA, Feb 20, 2025
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2830748?guestAccessKey=47e4b56b-8f69-4ff3-a26e-3a66a88b2c67&linkId=753250407

* Lancet, Feb 11, 2025
https://www.thelancet.com/editorial-policies#anchor10

Several other journals have published comparable editorials but are not yet Trumpist targets. Are they next? See the list maintained by the #DefendResearch team.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5_fjGPNh4_1Hgc0Q68Hr2vJhVIOK1Qc-KynfIG6fZI/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.b7h09z33t43x

Well, that’s new: targeted phishing that name-checked a specific, recent paper of mine. #scholcomm

New study: "#OpenAccess via #repositories (#GreenOA) correlates with higher citation counts and a lower probability of zero citations. In contrast, OA via the publisher's website without an explicit #OpenLicense (#BronzeOA) is associated with higher citation counts but also with a higher probability of zero citations."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15384v1

Spending on #OpenAccess in Germany's universities has risen from €6.2M (2018) to over €100M (2024) – a 1500%+ increase.
Closed Access remains stable and still dominates budgets.
https://pulse49.com/2025/05/23/library-spending-in-transition-open-access-surges-closed-access-remains-steady/

Invest in Open Infrastructure (#IOI, @investinopen) makes an important point in its new report:
https://investinopen.org/state-of-open-infrastructure-2025/sooi-foreword-2025/

"Imagine just a few of the major open infrastructures serving scholarship today: #arXiv, #PubMed, #DSpace, #OpenJournalSystems, or perhaps #CreativeCommons…Consider how many of these have been created on a cycle of grants and sustained on a combination of donations, membership fees, service hosting, and/or specialized development…Most scholars, teachers, and researchers…accept them as a given and depend on them…But these infrastructures are not, on the whole, sustainable businesses with robust fiscal models and diversified revenues. Many do not turn profits; most operate at steady losses that are absorbed by philanthropic and government funders and a variety of research institutions including labs, universities, and colleges. They operate on systems rife with technical debt, and they depend upon volunteer labour to cover much of their human costs from governance to editorial review to code development."

Just released: Updated "How Equitable Is It?" tool with clearer guidance & definitions for assessing #equity in #ScholComm models.

Try it: https://coalitions.typeform.com/Equity-Tool

More info: https://www.coalition-s.org/updated-version-of-the-how-equitable-is-it-tool-for-assessing-equity-in-scholarly-communication-models/

Developed by the beyond article-based charges working group, chaired by cOAlition S, Jisc, PLOS.