Collaborating With Early Career Researchers to Enhance the Future of Scholarly Publication: A Guide for Publishers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The scholarly publishing system is adapting to many changes, including open access and open data mandates, artificial intelligence, and other new technologies. Members of the research and publishing communities are working to establish a more equitable, fair, and rigorous system that serves researchers' evolving needs. Early career researchers (ECRs) are drivers of change, and publishers may wonder why and how they should involve ECRs in shaping the future of scholarly publishing. We held a virtual unconference to explore this issue with publishers and ECRs who were working to improve publishing. Some participants sought to improve peer reviewer or editor performance, whereas others sought to improve the publishing system itself through iterative or transformative change. Strategies for collaborating with ECRs to shape the future of scholarly publishing included peer review programmes, editorial programmes, ECR‐led journals, ECR boards and committee representatives, and other ECR‐initiated activities. ECRs particularly wanted to see three things improved: (1) Sharing research outputs other than publications, (2) addressing technological limitations to create systems that meet the research community's needs and facilitate knowledge advancement, and (3) fostering diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. We offer tips for publishers on how to collaborate with ECRs to enhance scholarly publishing, appeal to and learn from younger researchers, and better meet researchers' needs.
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 | 0.067 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.016 |
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".