MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413954012 · doi:10.24306/plnxt/111

Empowering scholarship: Young researcher-led journals as spaces for learning, envisioning, and experimenting with alternatives

2025· article· en· W4413954012 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Privitera, Pavel Grabalov, Milan Husár, Francesca Leccis, Ana Mafalda Madureira, Subhashree Nath, Lauren Uğur, Chandrima Mukhopadhyay, Sıla Ceren Varış Husar

Bibliographic record

VenueplaNext - Next Generation Planning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyScholarship of Teaching and LearningEngineering ethicsData scienceComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringTeaching methodTeaching and learning center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents reflections and experience-based perspectives on the potential of young researcher-led journals, such as plaNext – Next Generation Planning, to generate a space for learning from and networking with peers and senior scholars, as well as empowering young researchers and creating new ideas. Its original dialogue-based format is drawn from a two-hour online conversation that took place on March 7, 2025, between founding and current editorial members of plaNext. The discussion was recorded, then transcribed and polished, while leaving the main core of the discussion and tone intact. It was structured around a series of guiding questions prepared by the editors of this special issue, who adopted a qualitative research approach situated between focus groups and semi-structured interview formats. As such, the themes addressed were guided, while still allowing space for personal reflections and open expression. The resulting article is organized into five main thematic sections. The first explores the motivations that led participants to found or join the editorial team of plaNext, detailing its genesis as a collective initiative led by early career academics seeking to resist and challenge the competitive and exclusionary practices of academic publishing by offering a more inclusive and supportive environment for young scholars. The second section examines the tension between creatively innovating within the publishing system while maintaining scientific credibility and appeal. The third addresses the ethical challenges of adopting a supportive yet rigorous editorial approach, as well as the complexities of navigating diverse editorial roles and responsibilities. The fourth focuses on lessons learned from previous editorial experiences and how they could shape the vision and future direction of the journal. It also touches upon how the cross-cutting skills developed through editorial work can support career pathways both within and beyond academia. The final section presents general reflections and concrete suggestions for recognizing and valuing the work of reviewers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueplaNext - Next Generation PlanningSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207