Learned Publishing最新文献

{"title":"Early Career Researchers Open-Up on Citations in Respect to Reputation, Trust, Ethics, AI and Much More","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;Marzena Świgoń,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper, part of the Harbingers project studying early career researchers (ECRs), focuses on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on scholarly communications (https://ciber-research.com/harbingers-3/index.html). It investigates citations and citing, its purpose, function and use, especially in respect to reputation, trust, publishing and AI. We also cover journal impact factors, H-index, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. All of this, regarding a research community, to whom citations have special reputational and career-advancing value. This interview-based study covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. Furthermore, this study has been conducted with minimal prompting about citations, so providing a fresh feel by using the voices of ECRs wherever possible. Findings include: (1) citations are all-pervasive, although cropping up mostly in the reputational and trust arenas; (2) citations remain a major force in determining what is read, where to publish and what to trust; (3) there are no signs their value is diminishing; if anything, the opposite is true; (4) AI has given a boost to their use—primarily as a validity check; (5) there are strong signs that altmetrics are being taken up. Note, this was a preliminary study working with a convenience sample attempting to inform a future study. Our findings should therefore be treated more as early observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144140369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Toward Science-Led Publishing","authors":"Damian Pattinson,&nbsp;George Currie","doi":"10.1002/leap.2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2012","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The majority of scholarly communication today depends on publishing. An industry with estimated profit margins of between 30% and 50% (Van Noorden &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;), scholarly publishing has long been on a trajectory of consolidation, with 2022 estimates giving the top five publishers control over 60% of the market (Crotty &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Through the medium of the journal, scholarly publishers play an integral role for scientific communities. On the one hand, journals need to provide value to their customers—authors (through APCs—article processing charges), or readers (through library subscriptions)—and on the other, they are incentivised to maximise profitability and to outcompete other journals. While the incentive structures at play for publishers are primarily commercial, all scholarly publishing has to exist in the same system, face similar considerations and play the same game by the same rules.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The interests of scholarly communication and publishing are not always compatible. What's good for publishing isn't necessarily good for science, and successful publishing strategies may be actively harmful to the scholarly record.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing is an opportunity to realign the current processes and reward systems in publishing and research to first and foremost benefit the scientific endeavour. It demands faster, fairer and more transparent modes of science communication. It is not an unachievable ideal; it is a choice within our current reach.&lt;/i&gt;\u0000 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science-led publishing means two things. First, the needs of science communication dictate how publishing processes and models work, what options are available to researchers, and how researchers are incentivised—how success is measured—by funders and institutions. Second, it is not an end state. Science-led publishing must continually reevaluate itself so that it best serves the current needs of researchers and research within current social and technological boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;An example of this is how, despite technological advances, much of scholarly publishing still operates as it did in print. Where the print medium demanded works be final before they are shared, digital publishing allows works to be shared, reviewed and revised iteratively and publicly. This change could be relatively straightforward within our current technological limitations, and is already in place for some journals, yet much of the system exists in an inertia—why?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing enables faster scientific communication and expedites sharing and refining ideas and approaches ahead of formal review. The preprint becomes the standard research article type using existing infrastructure that is free for authors and readers.&lt;/i&gt;\u0000 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;i&gt;Science-led publishing changes the relationship between authors, editors and reviewers to one of collaboration rather than control. Authors have more choice in how and when t","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143944851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Black Market of Publications in Peru: Paper Mills and Authorship for Sale","authors":"Joel Alhuay-Quispe,&nbsp;Victoria Yance-Yupari","doi":"10.1002/leap.2014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2014","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The credit for authorship is the most common and significant means of recognising contributions in academic collaborations due to its impact on funding acquisition, staff evaluation, and academic career progression (Hosseini et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). However, the individualistic construction of authorship is a concept stemming from a reconceptualisation of the creative process (Jaszi and Woodmansee &lt;span&gt;2014&lt;/span&gt;). In academia, the ‘publish or perish’ phenomenon has shifted the overarching perspective on research processes—from being primarily dedicated to advancing human scientific, social, and cultural knowledge—to viewing the contribution of articles merely as transactional assets. In actual fact, within a society dominated by a ‘paper culture’, research and publication processes have been undermined by unethical practices. In scientific authorship, there are common ways of misconduct such as multiple unjustified authorship, ghostwriting, gift authorship, guest authorship, authorship under pressure. Additionally, other ways of misconduct such as team/group/consortium authorship and ‘authorship for sale’ have emerged latterly (Alhuay-Quispe &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; Chirico and Bramstedt &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; Hosseini et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Paper mills&lt;/i&gt; manufacture manuscripts that have never been written, where online enterprises sell authorship of the manuscripts and submit them to journals on behalf of the authors, often submitting to multiple journals simultaneously (Bricker-Anthony and Herzog &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). On the other hand, part of fake and unethical publishers' business is related to the purchase and sale of scholarly articles (Sorooshian &lt;span&gt;2017&lt;/span&gt;). COPE and STM (&lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;) call ‘paper mill’ a commercial enterprise; evidently, some of them are significant and highly professional, offering authorship in exchange &lt;i&gt;for a fee&lt;/i&gt;. A similar scientific authorship misconduct is ‘academic ghostwriting’ where they contract a writing service with plagiarism practices and significant alterations in authorship (Jung-Choi &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). Guest and ghost authorship have been replaced by a business in which individuals can purchase authorship positions, and emerging companies create spurious articles or copy already-published ones; then they sell authorship of them (Smart &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). Ghostwriting is a common unethical practice, specifically in biomedical journals, where a proliferation of industry-sponsored articles represents an important part of the pharmaceutical area (Yadav and Rawal &lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The proliferation of fake or manufactured papers is a problem for the world of academic research and publishing. It is estimated that 2% of submissions to scholarly journals across all disciplines come from paper mills, usually submitted by authors who have not previously published in an academic venue (Porter and McIntosh &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Furthermore, over 20% of the Retraction Watch datab","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143930479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Integrity and Misconduct, Where Does Artificial Intelligence Lead?","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Marzena Świgoń,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper, part of the third stage of the <i>Harbingers</i> project studying early career researchers (ECRs), focuses on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on scholarly communications. It concentrates on research integrity and misconduct, a ‘hot’ topic among the publishing community, in no small part due to the rise of AI. The interview-based study, supported by an extensive literature review, covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. It provides a new and fresh take on the subject, using the ‘voices’ of ECRs to describe their views and practices regarding integrity and misconduct. We show that ECRs are clearly aware of research misconduct and questionable practice with three-quarters saying so. A big indictment of the scholarly system, but, not surprising given a rising number of retractions and questionable journals. The main blame for this is levelled at the haste with which researchers publish and the volume of papers produced. ECRs also feel that things are likely to get worse with the advent of AI. They believe that they are aware of the problems and how to avoid the pitfalls but suspect that things are approaching a cliff-edge, which can only be avoided with strong policies and an overhaul of the reputational system.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143925975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Transformative Agreements, Publication Venues and Open Access Policies at the University of Milan”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/leap.2011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Berni L., and F. Zucchini. 2024. “Transformative Agreements, Publication Venues and Open Access Policies at the University of Milan.” <i>Learned Publishing</i> 37, no. 4: e1627. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1627.</p><p>In the article referenced above, the data sharing statement was not included. The data sharing statement should read as follows:</p><p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/3T1G2U.</p><p>We apologise for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143909100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fraudulent Research Falsely Attributed to Credible Researchers—An Emerging Challenge for Journals?","authors":"Tove Godskesen","doi":"10.1002/leap.2009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2009","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;A recent incident highlights a potentially new form of research fraud involving articles falsely attributed to a group of legitimate researchers. Several researchers contacted us via ResearchGate with questions about a published article titled ‘Investigating the Effectiveness of Play Therapy on Reducing Despair, and Anxiety in Children with Cancer’ in &lt;i&gt;Clinical Cancer Investigation Journal&lt;/i&gt; (Höglund et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Upon closer examination, we discovered that the article was published with our names (making up an active research group) listed as authors without our knowledge or consent and containing fabricated data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This raises important questions: How could this happen, and is this a new form of research fraud? Traditionally, research fraud has included data fabrication, or fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and honorary authorships. However, this incident points to another type of fraud where research is published under legitimate author names without their knowledge or contribution. This practice of fabricating data for an entire research group without their involvement may indeed be a new phenomenon.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A review of the Retraction Watch Database for 2023–2024 found that out of 30 papers retracted for false/forged authorship, 16 had explanations. The main causes were fictitious authorship (8 cases) and unauthorised publications (2 cases), with other issues including unethical co-author charges, false ethics approval, data fabrication (5 cases), and complete identity fabrication (1 case). Kwee and Kwee (&lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) found a 4.0% incidence of forged authorship in 192 retracted medical imaging papers from 1984 to 2021. Although none matched our exact experience, one similar case was noted (Orall &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Forged authorship and data fabrication pose new challenges to authorship integrity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recent studies reveal a significant portion of scientists admit to engaging in research misconduct, including data fabrication and falsification. A 2021 survey among Dutch researchers revealed that approximately 8% confessed to falsifying or fabricating data between 2017 and 2020 (Singh &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;), and over 50% admitted to questionable research practices like selective reporting. More than 10% of medical and life-science researchers admitted to such fraud. A comprehensive study of over 4700 researchers from Denmark and other countries showed that 9 out of 10 used at least one questionable research practice, influenced by social acceptability (Schneider et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Researchers analysed nearly 1 million papers published between 2020 and 2024, finding a steady increase in the use of generative AI in scientific papers, ranging from 6.3% to 17.5% depending on the topic (Liang et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Retraction rates have quadrupled, rising from approximately 11 retractions per 100,000 papers in 2000 to nearly 45 per 100,000 by 2020 (Holly &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;; Freijedo-Farinas et al. &lt;s","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143900994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Knowledge and Use of the ORCID Author Identifier in France: A National Survey","authors":"Aline Bouchard,&nbsp;Christophe Boudry","doi":"10.1002/leap.2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we explore the uses and awareness of the ORCID identifier in the French national research community using a questionnaire survey. This questionnaire has been completed in full by 6125 researchers, amounting to approximately 3.2% of the French national population of researchers. We asked the respondents about their reasons for creating an ORCID identifier, how they had discovered ORCID, what the characteristics of their ORCID profile were (privacy, completion of the various sections, etc.) and how they used it (context, motivations and obstacles). We also asked them about their knowledge of the ORCID ecosystem. We found that researchers overall reported a concrete, pragmatic knowledge of the ORCID identifier. The political and strategic framework remains generally unclear, or is unfamiliar, whether in terms of the objectives or the general interest of this tool. Researchers often only perceive the most obvious functionalities in their daily work, such as having an online profile. The less immediate or less individual features, such as being able to distinguish themselves from other researchers, are therefore not as well known and used. Our results should help stakeholders in France and internationally to adapt their policies and to support researchers more efficiently in the use of the ORCID identifier.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143879808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Where Will AI Take Scholarly Communication? Voices From the Research Frontline","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Marzena Swigon,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Early career researchers (ECRs) are in an ideal position to soothsay. Yet, much of what we know about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) comes from vested interest groups, such as publishers, tech companies and industry leaders, which are strong on hyperbole, are superficial and, at best, narrow surveys. This paper seeks to redress this by providing deep empirical data from researchers, allowing us to hear researchers' views and ‘voices’. The data comes from a project, which focuses on the impact of AI on scholarly communications. From this study, we report on the perceived transformations to the scholarly communications system by AI and other forces. We were especially interested in discovering what future ECRs foresaw for the established pillars of the system—journals and libraries. The interview-based study covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. The main findings being that while the large majority thought there would be a transformation there was no consensus as to what a transformation would look like, but there was agreement on it being one shaped by AI. The future appears rosy for journals, but less so for libraries and, importantly, for most ECRs, too.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143822299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking How We Publish to Support Open Science","authors":"Véronique Kiermer,&nbsp;Alison Mudditt,&nbsp;Niamh O'Connor","doi":"10.1002/leap.2006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2006","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;With the advent of the digital age, the way we create and consume information is changing. New ways of capturing and communicating the research process digitally give us the opportunity to honour the norms of open science by showcasing and enabling the re-use of a much broader range of contributions to research. This was widely predicted when the first journals appeared online but has taken longer to materialise than many anticipated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Research workflows have been transformed over the past few decades by the ability to gather ever growing datasets, to analyse them with ever increasing computing power, and to collaborate online. Scholarly publishing, however, has by and large lagged behind. While publications are now processed and distributed largely digitally, the publishing workflows, outputs, and fundamental concepts have largely remained artefacts of print publications.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Change is both needed and imminent. Journals have served as guarantors of quality through editorial oversight and peer review, and there is comfort in maintaining this view. However, by 20th century norms, this gatekeeping generally meant publishing only those authors and outputs with familiar credentials. This is reminiscent of those who resisted early printing presses on the grounds that they cheapened knowledge and threatened religious authority (Quocirca &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). It is neither realistic nor desirable. Communicating research today requires expanding this view. We believe a more useful approach is to reimagine how we assess and share research, as well as how we enable discovery and reuse, while fully embracing the principles of open science.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Open science is about more than being able to read an article. It is about providing the right context to understand it, the resources to replicate the work, and the tools to collaborate and make science better. It is also about broadening participation in knowledge creation, dissemination, and reuse. We have an opportunity to make a move away from the legacy constraints of the physical format and take advantage of the opportunities provided by a digital world to support the advancement of usable, trustworthy knowledge and enable global participation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) “outlines a common definition, shared values, principles and standards for open science at the international level and proposes a set of actions conducive to a fair and equitable operationalization of open science for all.” Ultimately, open science is a set of principles and practices that allows science to be conducted according to its norms and “as a common good”. The UNESCO definition adds to that of the US National Academies (&lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;), emphasising the need for diversity of participation in order to achieve the more reliable and effective knowledge creation that open science promises.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The inception of PLOS was inspired by developments in scientific and information tech","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143822298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging the Gender Gap in African Scientific Publishing: Insights From Web of Science Indexed Journals","authors":"Zakaria Elouaourti,&nbsp;Imane Elouardighi,&nbsp;Aomar Ibourk","doi":"10.1002/leap.2007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2007","url":null,"abstract":"<p>African women researchers represent a minority within Africa's scientific community, accounting for 29.3%—a figure significantly lower than in other regions: 39% in Europe, 41% in Asia, 43% in South America, and 44% in North America. Moreover, this low participation rate masks intra-African disparities, with some Sub-Saharan African countries exhibiting particularly low percentages, such as Chad (3.35%), Guinea (9.81%) and Togo (11.47%), reflecting significant gender imbalances (UNESCO). This study examines the participation of African women in scientific publications, focusing on differences between social sciences and exact sciences, as well as regional disparities between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. It aims to identify key challenges and propose actions to enhance the presence of African women researchers in high-impact journals. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analyses a micro-level database of African publications from 2010 (30,455 articles) and 2022 (137,566 articles) retrieved from Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals. Additionally, qualitative insights are drawn from interviews with African women researchers. The quantitative analysis reveals a modest increase in female authorship from 29% in 2010 to 32% in 2022, aligning with UNESCO's statistics (2022). While progress has been observed, disparities persist across scientific disciplines. Notably, female participation in exact sciences has grown significantly, with Engineering and Technology rising from 16% to 21%, Physical Sciences from 19% to 23%, and Life Sciences and Biomedicine from 29% to 35%. In contrast, gains in social sciences were more modest, with Arts and Humanities remaining stable at 28% and Social Sciences increasing slightly from 26% to 28%. Regional variations are also evident, with South Africa and Egypt leading in contributions. Qualitative interviews highlight barriers such as gender bias, financial constraints, and limited institutional support, which continue to hinder women's academic progression. This study is the first to conduct a granular article-level analysis of African women's participation in WoS-indexed journals, employing innovative methods to infer author gender and utilising text mining techniques for qualitative analysis. Its findings provide critical insights for policymakers and academic institutions striving to promote gender equity in African research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143818715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}