Scholarly Journal Publication: Conflicting Agendas for Scholars, Publishers, and Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are four main parties involved in publishing scholarly scientific journals: scholars, who produce the work and are its ultimate consumers; editors, who manage the publication process; publishers, who publish the work; and subscribers, largely institutions, who purchase the work. Because of conflicting agendas, natural tensions exist among these four parties. At the same time, some recent and ongoing trends have exacerbated these tensions: the rate at which new information is being produced, the growth of electronic communication, and the strained budgets of many institutions. This article summarizes these aspects of the scholarly communication environment, assesses some of the reasons for the current situation, and provides a commentary on what the future might bring. The current situation in scholarly scientific journal publications cannot be sustained; therefore, it is necessary for all the parties to collaborate in creating an environment of mutual respect, sharing ownership of the problems, and encouraging efforts to move toward a sustainable system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.213 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.105 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".