Learned Publishing最新文献

{"title":"Towards a DOI-First Referencing Model: Opportunities, Limitations and Implications for Scholarly Publishing","authors":"Mazhar Mushtaq","doi":"10.1002/leap.2052","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2052","url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Why Are We Still Formatting References Manually?</i> Despite transformative advances in artificial intelligence (AI), one aspect of academic publishing remains strikingly outdated: reference formatting. Most journals still require authors to use discipline-specific or journal-specific citation styles, such as Vancouver, APA, AMA, MLA or proprietary variations, none of which align with their original styles. These formats differ in punctuation, abbreviation rules, capitalisation patterns and ordering conventions. Although these stylistic choices add no scientific value, they impose a persistent and unnecessary burden on authors, reviewers, editors and publishers.</p><p><i>The Digital Paradox: AI-Assisted Writing versus Manual Referencing</i>: AI-assisted writing tools now perform tasks once considered impossible: automated literature searches, structure-aware drafting, screening of systematic-review records, summarisation of complex findings and even preliminary manuscript generation. Yet researchers still spend hours adjusting italics, checking superscripts, reordering author lists and correcting journal abbreviations, activities that neither improve quality nor enhance reproducibility. This contrast highlights an inconsistency between our modern digital tools and the analogue habits preserved within editorial workflows. These practices persist even though they contribute nothing to scientific quality, reproducibility or clarity. Instead, they reflect a legacy workflow inherited from print-era publishing. Furthermore, the journal's publishers have adopted new tools for manuscript submission. However, reference lists remain dependent on manual formatting or on citation software that often introduces inconsistencies and requires substantial author intervention.</p><p>The DOI (Digital Object Identifier) already provides a universal, machine-readable, permanent and unambiguous identifier for scholarly objects, operating as the research world's equivalent of the QR code: compact, unique and instantly retrievable. A DOI retrieves full citation metadata, including authors, title, journal, year, pages, publisher and links to the version of record. Databases, citation APIs, indexing services and AI systems all rely on DOI-based metadata rather than human-formatted references. These data can be retrieved instantly through registration agencies such as CrossRef and DataCite (Lee and Stvilia <span>2012</span>; Starr and Gastl <span>2011</span>; Wiley <span>2014</span>).</p><p>Therefore, I propose that journals adopt a <i>universal DOI-first citation format</i>, whereby each cited source is listed simply in one line as:</p><p>DOI: 10.xxxx/xxxxx <i>OR</i> https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx</p><p>Without the use of any italics, abbreviations or stylistic rules, like the use of three authors, six authors or et al. Similarly, the use of superscripts, square brackets, bold initials, italics, it's, all mixed with commas, semicolons, years before or after, names in","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147566053","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":"AI And the Editors' Ghost: Who Is the Writer Now?","authors":"David Clark,&nbsp;David Nicholas,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;John Akeroyd,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Marzena Swigon,&nbsp;Tatyana Polezhaeva,&nbsp;Anne Gere,&nbsp;Eti Herman","doi":"10.1002/leap.2051","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2051","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This an exploration of the use of AI in research and writing. It builds upon the ‘Harbingers’ project, an international and longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) and scholarly communication. In the fourth phase of the project, we returned to the theme of AI, in particular AI as ‘ghostwriter’. Our sources are transcripts of conversational, open-form interviews with over 60 ECRs from Britain, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, and other countries. For an initial analysis of the transcripts, we used Google NotebookLM. An overarching and thematic summary of the data was produced in minutes, that would otherwise have occupied our research team for weeks. The unprompted text, immediately plausible and coherent, was regarded by all national interviewers as impressive. Here, using a relatively small, convenience sample, we compare the AI generated summaries both against our original data and those first impressions. We reflect upon our own experience of using AI and that of our interviewees. This paper is about how we used AI as an experiment, our reaction to it, how that chimes, resonates, echoes the experiences of the ECRs. It is a calibration for our future data analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147566055","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":"From Gatekeeping to Brokerage: A Collaborative Ethnography of Editorial Work in International English as a Foreign Language Journals","authors":"Thanh Thao Le,&nbsp;Hoang Yen Phuong,&nbsp;Trut Thuy Pham","doi":"10.1002/leap.2053","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2053","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Editors are often cast as gatekeepers who police the boundaries of knowledge. Yet in non-Anglophone settings, editorial practice is also translational, relational and identity-forming. We present a collaborative ethnography by a three-member authorship team, including two women and one man, who simultaneously served in editorial roles across international, English-medium journals in English as a foreign language (EFL)/applied linguistics. Drawing on fieldnotes, decision letters, reviewer exchanges, platform logs and reflexive journals, we theorise editorial brokerage: the day-to-day mediations through which editors translate standards across epistemic traditions, mobilise networks to calibrate judgement and negotiate role/time frictions within teaching-intensive institutions. We integrate sociocultural theory and communities of practice to propose the Editorial Brokerage Cycle: linking tensions, mediations, identity work and outcomes. Findings are organised as five ethnographic vignettes, including decision letters as pedagogical genre, epistemic translation, reviewer ecologies, temporal/role frictions and becoming an editor. Each ends with a micro-proposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147565507","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":"From Gatekeeping to Brokerage: A Collaborative Ethnography of Editorial Work in International English as a Foreign Language Journals","authors":"Thanh Thao Le,&nbsp;Hoang Yen Phuong,&nbsp;Trut Thuy Pham","doi":"10.1002/leap.2053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2053","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Editors are often cast as gatekeepers who police the boundaries of knowledge. Yet in non-Anglophone settings, editorial practice is also translational, relational and identity-forming. We present a collaborative ethnography by a three-member authorship team, including two women and one man, who simultaneously served in editorial roles across international, English-medium journals in English as a foreign language (EFL)/applied linguistics. Drawing on fieldnotes, decision letters, reviewer exchanges, platform logs and reflexive journals, we theorise editorial brokerage: the day-to-day mediations through which editors translate standards across epistemic traditions, mobilise networks to calibrate judgement and negotiate role/time frictions within teaching-intensive institutions. We integrate sociocultural theory and communities of practice to propose the Editorial Brokerage Cycle: linking tensions, mediations, identity work and outcomes. Findings are organised as five ethnographic vignettes, including decision letters as pedagogical genre, epistemic translation, reviewer ecologies, temporal/role frictions and becoming an editor. Each ends with a micro-proposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147565765","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":"When Feedback Is Missing: Rethinking Transparency in Editorial Decision-Making","authors":"Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr","doi":"10.1002/leap.2049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2049","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The editorial decision-making process is central to the integrity and credibility of scholarly publishing. While rejections are expected and often unavoidable, the way decisions are communicated has significant implications for author trust and engagement. Clear, respectful and transparent communication can transform a rejection into a learning opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, vague or impersonal responses risk being perceived as arbitrary, diminishing confidence in the editorial process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, editorial work is complex and context-dependent. Different journal models operate under distinct missions and constraints. Journal hierarchies and impact-based incentive structures have been shown to shape publication priorities and evaluative thresholds (Brembs et al. &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;). In this context, different journal models may emphasise methodological soundness, perceived importance or broad readership to varying degrees. Recognising these differences is essential to avoid oversimplifying the editorial role. Nonetheless, regardless of model, clarity in communication remains a professional obligation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transparency has become a cornerstone of contemporary research culture. Authors are now routinely expected to disclose conflicts of interest, preregister studies and share data—practices that collectively enhance trust in the research process. However, equivalent standards of transparency are not consistently applied to editorial practices (Faggion &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Editorial decisions and reviewer selection patterns may influence peer-review outcomes (Wang et al. &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). Empirical research on peer review and editorial decision-making further contextualises these concerns. Studies suggest that desk rejections are common in high-volume journals and serve an important efficiency function, yet communication practices vary substantially across publications (Resnik and Elmore &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). Research suggests that editorial decisions may be shaped not only by formal evaluative standards but also by broader incentive structures and selection dynamics within journal systems (Brembs et al. &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;; Wang et al. &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). At the same time, scholarship on peer review transparency emphasises that clearer articulation of decision criteria can improve perceived fairness and trust in evaluation processes. While systematic evidence on the content of desk-rejection letters remains limited, the broader literature supports continued examination of how editorial discretion is exercised and communicated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This raises the broader question of how expectations of transparency and accountability apply to editorial decision-making itself. This conceptual commentary draws on an illustrative case to examine transparency in desk-rejection communication and to propose a flexible, criteria-aligned approach aimed at improving clarity while preserving editorial autonomy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The example presented here is intend","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147562456","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":"When Feedback Is Missing: Rethinking Transparency in Editorial Decision-Making","authors":"Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr","doi":"10.1002/leap.2049","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2049","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The editorial decision-making process is central to the integrity and credibility of scholarly publishing. While rejections are expected and often unavoidable, the way decisions are communicated has significant implications for author trust and engagement. Clear, respectful and transparent communication can transform a rejection into a learning opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, vague or impersonal responses risk being perceived as arbitrary, diminishing confidence in the editorial process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, editorial work is complex and context-dependent. Different journal models operate under distinct missions and constraints. Journal hierarchies and impact-based incentive structures have been shown to shape publication priorities and evaluative thresholds (Brembs et al. &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;). In this context, different journal models may emphasise methodological soundness, perceived importance or broad readership to varying degrees. Recognising these differences is essential to avoid oversimplifying the editorial role. Nonetheless, regardless of model, clarity in communication remains a professional obligation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transparency has become a cornerstone of contemporary research culture. Authors are now routinely expected to disclose conflicts of interest, preregister studies and share data—practices that collectively enhance trust in the research process. However, equivalent standards of transparency are not consistently applied to editorial practices (Faggion &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Editorial decisions and reviewer selection patterns may influence peer-review outcomes (Wang et al. &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). Empirical research on peer review and editorial decision-making further contextualises these concerns. Studies suggest that desk rejections are common in high-volume journals and serve an important efficiency function, yet communication practices vary substantially across publications (Resnik and Elmore &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). Research suggests that editorial decisions may be shaped not only by formal evaluative standards but also by broader incentive structures and selection dynamics within journal systems (Brembs et al. &lt;span&gt;2013&lt;/span&gt;; Wang et al. &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). At the same time, scholarship on peer review transparency emphasises that clearer articulation of decision criteria can improve perceived fairness and trust in evaluation processes. While systematic evidence on the content of desk-rejection letters remains limited, the broader literature supports continued examination of how editorial discretion is exercised and communicated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This raises the broader question of how expectations of transparency and accountability apply to editorial decision-making itself. This conceptual commentary draws on an illustrative case to examine transparency in desk-rejection communication and to propose a flexible, criteria-aligned approach aimed at improving clarity while preserving editorial autonomy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The example presented here is intend","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147564903","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":"Securing the Future of Books: A Collaborative Guide to Preservation","authors":"Graham Bell,&nbsp;David Cirella,&nbsp;Gali Halevi,&nbsp;Claire Holloway,&nbsp;Neil Jefferies,&nbsp;Roxanne Missingham,&nbsp;Sylvia Pegg,&nbsp;James Phillpotts,&nbsp;Alison Pope,&nbsp;Alicia Wise","doi":"10.1002/leap.2047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2047","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines critical challenges in preservation, such as infrastructure limitations, technological barriers and resource constraints, and explores potential solutions through collaborative initiatives, standardised reporting and targeted investments. Drawing on existing literature and previous efforts to preserve academic content, including journal preservation and digital content archiving, the paper outlines actionable steps to safeguard the future of scholarly books. A working group was formed to create a comprehensive guide for preservation, providing a framework that will support publishers, libraries and researchers in securing the ongoing availability of digital monographs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147562500","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":"Securing the Future of Books: A Collaborative Guide to Preservation","authors":"Graham Bell,&nbsp;David Cirella,&nbsp;Gali Halevi,&nbsp;Claire Holloway,&nbsp;Neil Jefferies,&nbsp;Roxanne Missingham,&nbsp;Sylvia Pegg,&nbsp;James Phillpotts,&nbsp;Alison Pope,&nbsp;Alicia Wise","doi":"10.1002/leap.2047","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2047","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines critical challenges in preservation, such as infrastructure limitations, technological barriers and resource constraints, and explores potential solutions through collaborative initiatives, standardised reporting and targeted investments. Drawing on existing literature and previous efforts to preserve academic content, including journal preservation and digital content archiving, the paper outlines actionable steps to safeguard the future of scholarly books. A working group was formed to create a comprehensive guide for preservation, providing a framework that will support publishers, libraries and researchers in securing the ongoing availability of digital monographs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147562498","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":"From Policy to Psychology: Analysing Evaluations of Journal Credibility Through Institutional and Cognitive Lenses","authors":"Nikolina Peša Pavlović,&nbsp;Franjo Pehar,&nbsp;Pavle Valerjev","doi":"10.1002/leap.2042","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2042","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigated how Croatian scholars in the social sciences and humanities assess the credibility of academic journals, focusing on the influence of journal characteristics, academic discipline, rank, and cognitive style. Using a mixed-method design with 1307 participants, we manipulated information about three journal characteristics (peer review, scope/title, institutional affiliations) across eight scenarios. Participants rated the credibility of each journal scenario and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Results showed that each positive journal characteristic, as well as its combinations, significantly increased perceived credibility. Scholars with higher publishing expectations were more critical than their lower-ranking peers, whilst no differences emerged between disciplinary areas. Reflective cognitive style, as measured by the CRT, was negatively correlated with credibility ratings, particularly for scenarios depicting lower-quality journals. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure, suggesting that scholars tend to categorise journals into credible and non-credible types. These findings underscore the combined influence of structural and cognitive factors in scholarly decision-making and highlight the role of reflective thinking in safeguarding research integrity. Implications are discussed for research policy, research training, and efforts to mitigate the impact of predatory publishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146217333","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":"Why Not Use the Power of Artificial Intelligence to Encourage the Reading of Scientific Articles?","authors":"Mert Şen,&nbsp;Yeşim Yener","doi":"10.1002/leap.2040","DOIUrl":"10.1002/leap.2040","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Scientific articles are fundamental scholarly communication tools that present original knowledge on a given topic within a systematic, evidence-based, and academically rigorous framework. These texts may span many pages and often contain dense conceptual discussions, detailed methodological explanations, and technical terminology. For a researcher seeking to progress in academia, scanning these lengthy texts, reviewing the relevant literature, and determining which articles are meaningful for their own work is an unavoidable process. However, this process is time-consuming, and for many researchers, literature review constitutes a significant portion of their overall research effort (Booth et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Leite et al. &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;). Moreover, scientific articles are not only needed by academics; individuals seeking reliable information on any topic may also rely on scholarly literature. Considering the rapid spread of misinformation across social media platforms today, the importance of accessing accurate and scientific knowledge has become even more critical (Meel and Vishwakarma &lt;span&gt;2020&lt;/span&gt;). Yet not everyone has the time or inclination to read long academic texts. Some individuals prefer consuming information in shorter, clearer, and visually or audiovisually supported formats instead of engaging with extended reading. Therefore, AI supported short video formats, which allow people to access the information they seek quickly, have become an appealing alternative, particularly in today's world where time is highly valued.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If our goals include disseminating scientific knowledge accurately, making it accessible to the public, reaching diverse groups of researchers, and introducing science to emerging scholars, why should we not employ artificial intelligence tools for this purpose? The opportunities provided by AI represent a significant potential for widening the reach of scientific knowledge. While we fully acknowledge that traditional forms of academic communication—such as journal publications- remain our primary scholarly instruments, these texts often have limited reach among broader audiences, particularly in fields where academic language is dense and highly technical. At precisely this point, AI-supported video-based summarisation tools offer the potential to serve as an alternative mode of presenting scientific content (Liang et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;; Liu et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;; Varalatchoumy et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;). Although current studies do not fully capture the extent to which AI tools are accessible or effectively usable by everyone, discussing the implications of this emerging transformation for the visibility of scientific work has become a necessity in the digital age. In this paper, we aim to explore the attention-capturing potential of AI-generated, easily producible video summaries of academic articles. Before proceeding to the broader discussion, we begin by presenting a short illustrative","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146217116","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}