Scholarly publishing round up: Insights on journals, open science, AI, and editorial practices

This week’s scholarly publishing round up showcases conversations on three themes: the economics and ethics of scientific publishing, monitoring open science practices, and editorial independence in university journals.  

The high cost of prolific publishing 

Manuel Ansede’s report in El País examines the recent expulsion of the journal, Science of the Total Environment from a leading journal indexing system due to irregularities. According to the report, under editor Damià Barceló, the journal dramatically increased its open access output, potentially at the expense of quality, indicating the monetary incentives behind such a strategy. The case, Ansede argues, illustrates how publishers have achieved enormous profits (over $1.5 billion in 2024) by exploiting the pressures of the publish-or-perish culture, often using public funds earmarked for science. The article raises questions about the sustainability and integrity of scientific publishing, revealing that the drive for volume can compromise both research quality and public trust.

Read the full article here. 

Tracking open science in practice 

In their post on the Open Science Monitoring Initiative (OSMI) blog, Iratxe Puebla and Eleonora Colangelo discuss a survey of scholarly content providers that sought to understand how open science is being monitored. While 70% of respondents reported actively tracking open science outputs such as articles, datasets, and software, outcome indicators like reuse, collaboration, and societal engagement were far less common. The survey also revealed a heavy focus on compliance with policies rather than measuring the broader impact of openness. Scholarly content providers not yet monitoring the impact of open research cite funding, staff capacity, and standardized frameworks as key factors that could help them measure impact. Puebla and Colangelo highlight the need for greater methodological alignment, transparency, and support to help content providers track the value of open science more effectively.

Read the full article here. 

Ensuring editorial independence in university journals 

Maryna Nazarovets and Serhii Nazarovets’ post on the DOAJ Blog addresses the challenges of editorial endogamy and endogeny, where editorial board members frequently publish in their own journals. This practice, common in university journals, raises concerns about independence, diversity, and trust. The authors recommend practical steps to reduce these risks, including diversifying editorial boards, implementing transparent selection processes, limiting term lengths, fostering external reviewer participation, and encouraging submissions from a broader author base. By addressing these structural issues, university journals can uphold quality, fairness, and credibility while supporting open science.

Read the full article here. 

The articles we picked this week highlight the evolving dynamics of scholarly publishing, the pressures of volume-driven publishing, the opportunities and gaps in monitoring open science, and the importance of editorial independence.  

If you have come across an article, study, or commentary that got you thinking, we’d love to hear about it. Share it in the comments below.