aj boston

Reparations now, Botchardt.

exactly:)

Having a unique ORCID identifier is one way for academics to distinguish themselves from other researchers with the same name, but a far simpler solution would be for the bigger one to consume the smaller one.

bsky.app/profile/aj-b...

Funny to think how some journals providing requisite acceptance statuses may be using A.I. editorial tools and (knowingly or not) relying on A.I. (assisted or automated) peer reviewers.

Just realized that last night marked daylight savings so I feel better about how late I was awake lol.

In any case, this move slightly weakens the pro-preprint case for journals not adding value and (in the case of review & position papers) strengthens the case for Article Development Charges.

If it weren't 1:40 AM, I would have so, so mcu to say about this developement in the relationship between preprints and journals.

arXiv will no longer accept review articles and position papers unless they have been accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review.

This is due to being overwhelmed by a hundreds of AI generated papers a month.

Yet another open submission process killed by LLMs.

Nobody remembers this 😭

Predatory trick 'r treating

That's it!

Forking over wads of cash to a giant candy corportation in order to give it away to whoever comes knocking is Big Open Access Energy 😝

now that's what i call pod synergy!

the jolly green open access, i presume!

hard to detect, but it's there!

Would you like to see an adult dressed as a turtle in a trench coat.

instead of blogging I should have just submitted an ACRLnews schol column every month. really missed my calling on that one

Tiny Desk make some noise for Oklou!

Very touched. Thank you 🥹👉🏼👈🏼

Please, lord, get these MFs into the library supply game.

By 2019 standards, I was cooking, actually!

Alas,

When I published my first writing for an academic library audience it felt very important I be true to myself in the writing, but in hindsight I think making a Justin Bieber reference in the opening paragraph may be the reason it's not cited 😞

Shout out to the Internet Archive!

I recently and very hastily deleted what I thought was the lesser of two similar LibGuides and when I caught my mistake, the Wayback Machine saved my butt. 🏆

deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/10/an-o...

Does anyone notice a drop in the quality of the peer-review and editorial process over at Nature's Scientific Reports journal over the last few years? In my case, in the past 2 years members of my faculty have published 8 papers in Scientific Reports. Although these papers vary in quality and impact, they are not necessarily bad. However, the peer-review process for many of them seems to have been a complete sham. For instance: - 2 of the papers were reviewed by a single reviewer - 3 other papers' reviews were delivered within 2 weeks of submission and consisted of basic softball questions that can be addressed literally within 20 minutes Both of those points are extremely unusual for my field where reviews typically take months and usually include requests for additional data, more detailed analyses, and significant pushback from reviewers. I was so taken aback by the handling of these papers that I started to wonder if Scientific Reports are willing to sacrifice scientific rigor for collecting their processing fee ASAP?

Their entire shtick is that whatever you send them, it will get published unless it is outright wrong. In some cases I've seen papers rejected but only if they were a 1:1 rehash of existing work. IMO, there was a need for this kind of thing to be offered by a reputable publisher. In most academic careers there comes a time when you think you had a brilliant idea but perhaps it just didn't quite work out, or it sits awkwardly between the disciplines, or it's a bit whacky, and so on. And you know you can just skip the endless guantlet of traditional journals and send it to Sci Rep instead. In my field, 9 out of 10 paper reviews don't come down to the quality of the work itself but to the question of whether the manuscript is appropriate for the respective journal. (This of course is supposed to be the editor's job, but in reality it is done by the referees). Once you remove that discussion, unless a paper is clearly nonsense or AI-slop, then what is there to say? And that's why many people turned away from reviewing for Sci Rep, it can be quite frustrating to review low-quality work but you can't reject it based on journal guidelines. Hence you will end up with lots of one-person reviews.

Reddit: "Is Scientific Reports becoming the new MDPI?"

🔗: www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademi...