News: Academic Publishing Weekly

The Authors Guild releases "Human Authored” certification, a look at the latest OA news, and thoughts on executive orders influencing research

Posted on February 7, 2025 in News

The Impact of Recent Executive Orders on Academic Research

Since the inauguration in January, the new US administration has issued a slew of executive orders—some of which are affecting academic research. For instance, researchers are facing barriers to grant funding following orders that “ban funding for diversity, equity and inclusion; ‘gender ideology’; and green energy projects.” In addition, the CDC recently told its researchers to “retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal.” The instruction is the result of an executive order barring the inclusion of “forbidden terms” in research. As Med Page Today underscored, many manuscripts “include simple demographic information about the populations or patients studied,” such as “forbidden terms” like gender. As a result, a non-CDC scientist stated that some scientists are adopting “preemptive obedience.” Med Page Today also noted that the orders’ vague language makes it challenging for institutions to issue guidance.

---

---

AI Round-Up: Research Use, “Human Authored” Certification, and ChatGPT Updates

In response to the growing prevalence of AI, the Authors Guild has released a “Human Authored” certification for books. Authors Guild members with single-authored titles can now submit their books, sign an agreement, and obtain “a unique, numbered certification mark for use on book covers, spines, or promotional materials.” Turning to AI in research, Wiley published a new study called ExplanAltions. Looking at close to 5,000 researchers, the study found that despite somewhat limited usage across the research lifecycle, the “majority [of respondents] believe that AI currently outperforms humans in over half of the 43 use cases tested.” Respondents also reported a lack of AI training across regions and disciplines, with roughly 70 percent wanting publishers to develop more robust guidelines. Lastly, The Verge detailed a new development for ChatGPT called deep research. OpenAI underlined that deep research can “plan and execute a multi-step trajectory to find the data it needs, backtracking and reacting to real-time information where necessary.” The announcement follows the rapid adoption of China’s DeepSeek model in January.

---

Hybrid OA Makes Gains and cOAlition S Ceases its Journal Comparison Service

cOAlition S is ending its Journal Comparison Service (JCS). Introduced in 2022, JCS served as a “useful and secure price transparency tool for assisting libraries and library consortia in their open access negotiations with all publishers.” cOAlition S cited low use of the service, noting that although the JCS includes data for 37 publishers, only 549 journals are represented. cOAlition S also stated that the “JCS had just 105 registered end users” at the end of last year. The service will close April 30. In other OA news, Delta Think analyzed a recent survey of OASPA members’ open access output. The survey revealed that despite modest growth in overall output, publications in fully OA journals are on the decline. As Delta Think’s Dan Pollock emphasized, “In 2023, the volume of articles in fully OA journals shrank by two thirds of a percent, compared with a growth of 14% the previous year.” By contrast, output in hybrid OA journals increased by more than 20 percent. The survey also showed that CC BY licensing remains prevalent, along with high market consolidation.

---

---

OA Continued: CLOCKSS Partners with SUP and the Launch of Lifecycle Journal

The Center for Open Science (COS) has unveiled a three-year pilot initiative, Lifecycle Journal. The journal enables researchers to continually revise their publications, collaborate with colleagues, and gain “feedback from a diverse range of community-led evaluation services.” Speaking on the journal, Brian Nosek, Executive Director of COS, stressed that, “By enabling researchers to share and refine their work throughout the entire research lifecycle, it addresses critical challenges in trust, rigor, and accountability.” Next up, CLOCKSS announced a partnership with Scottish University Press (SUP). Under the collaboration, CLOCKSS “will securely archive and preserve SUP’s publications” with a shared goal of “collaboration, transparency, and long-term digital preservation.”

---

How Prevalent Are Retractions?

A recent study published in PLOS Biology finds that over 8,000 highly cited researchers experience retractions. In particular, the study cross-referenced more than 39,000 retractions from a Retraction Watch database with a list of highly cited researchers. Four percent of 2023’s highest-cited scientists had a retracted paper. Similarly, 3.3 percent of researchers “most-cited over their careers” dealt with at least one retraction. The study also revealed a larger proportion of retractions for papers with self-citations and multiple co-authors. Nonetheless, Dorothy Bishop, a retired neuropsychologist at the University of Oxford, cautioned that the “analysis provides a bit of weak circumstantial evidence that this is a real issue, and that we should look carefully at authors with high citation rates, and not just assume they are great researchers.” [Nature]

---

Related Posts