Профиль

Share your thoughts in the comments 👇 You can read the full report here: buff.ly/zhB46Du #ScholarlyPublishing #PeerReview

2025 Report: Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal PublishersInsights into smaller-sized publishers' technical priorities, from research integrity to AI adoption.lp.scholasticahq.com

❓ 3️⃣ Up next: When asked, "What is your team's #1 goal for your journal tech stack over the next 12-24 months?" participants were focused on increasing publishing efficiency and output. How would you answer today, and why?

In the meantime, this recent EON article from Ethan Feinstein, @ascocancer.bsky.social Journals Coordinator, explores some ways publishers are responding to surging submissions: buff.ly/ZkNzCWy Are you taking any of these steps?

^ Scholastica CEO and Co-Founder Brian Cody, Frontiers Research Integrity Portfolio Manager Simone Ragavooloo, Wiley Director of Integrity Platforms Sam Parker, and Innovation Ideas Founder Helen King will share approaches to AI policy development and screening.

If you're attending this year's #ISMTE Conference, don't miss the session: 🛫 "Ready for Takeoff: Putting AI safeguards (and slop guards) in place."

Now, the question is: How can editorial teams avoid getting overwhelmed by low-substance submissions while maintaining rigorous review and fairness?

You can read the full report here: buff.ly/fOxSZmf #ScholarlyPublishing #PeerReview

Where are you incorporating AI into your workflows? Where are you holding back? What's driving those decisions? Share your thoughts in the comments 👇

❓ 2️⃣ Up next: When asked, "To what extent do you currently use AI tools in your day-to-day?" participants had mixed responses. How would you answer today?

You can read the full report here: buff.ly/fOxSZmf #ScholarlyPublishing #PeerReview

2025 Report: Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal PublishersInsights into smaller-sized publishers' technical priorities, from research integrity to AI adoption.lp.scholasticahq.com

Do you agree? Is AI-generated content your top research integrity concern, or are other issues higher on your list? Why? Share your thoughts in the comments 👇

❓1️⃣ Up first: When asked which research integrity risks they expected to be of great concern to their publishing organization over the next 3–5 years, 84% of respondents selected AI-generated content.

💬 In what ways is the scholarly publishing landscape shaping up as you expected for this year? What's surprised you the most? Share your thoughts in the comments 👇 #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicPublishing #AcademicSky

Scholastica's team has been focused on: ➡️ Expanding software accessibility standards ➡️ The rise of GEO ➡️ Impacts of "AI slop" ➡️ The effects of online fatigue Learn more in this blog post: buff.ly/IHeW4Fx

Scholarly Publishing Trends to Watch in 2026What does 2026 have in store for scholarly publishing? Members of the Scholastica team share their predictions and recommendations for journal publishers.blog.scholasticahq.com

We hope you found this thread helpful! Have additional advice or questions? Add it to the comments! 👇 #ScholarlyPublishing #ResearchEthics #ResearchIntegrity

Tip: When contacting authors or their institutions about potential plagiarism, it's best to avoid accusatory language. Instead, focus on explaining your policies and asking for clarification where needed. Also, remember to conceal the identity of any outside party who raises a plagiarism concern.

3️⃣ Have clear policies for addressing potential plagiarism Journals should also have policies for investigating instances of potential plagiarism. COPE @publicationethics.bsky.social has flowcharts you can use for suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript and plagiarism in a published article.

Editors should also be aware that a low score doesn't mean a manuscript is good to go, since any amount of direct plagiarism of another work is a problem (e.g., a 10% similarity score with a single published article). For these reasons, every similarity report should be reviewed by a person.

Editors should understand that a high Similarity Score *does not* automatically mean a manuscript contains plagiarism. For example, it could be the result of various small text overlaps that aren't problematic (e.g., legitimate references).

Of course, while commonly referred to as "plagiarism detection software," these tools can't definitively determine whether a work contains plagiarism. That's why it's essential to calibrate them and establish human-in-the-loop review processes.