Pedagogical strategy for scholarly communication literacy and avoiding deceptive publishing practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informing and supporting researchers’ understanding of the challenges of scholarly communication, particularly how to avoid deceptive publishing practices, remains a challenge for the academic community and its stakeholders. Over the past decade, this community has developed various strategies to assist its members in addressing this issue. However, these measures do not seem to be sufficient, and many researchers, particularly younger and less experienced ones, continue to fall prey to predatory publications. This article presents a series of workshops on scholarly communication literacy as a pedagogical strategy to raise awareness and to prevent novice researchers from falling victim to the challenges of scholarly communication and unethical publishing practices. Most participants perceived these training workshops as an effective educational approach. The results of these educational seminars demonstrate that this type of pedagogical strategy that consists of training, awareness-raising, and prevention approaches is a key factor to informing and warning novice researchers about scholarly communication pitfalls and deceptive publishing practices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.215 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it