{"id":3902,"date":"2023-05-10T10:41:56","date_gmt":"2023-05-10T08:41:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/?p=3902"},"modified":"2025-07-29T16:00:54","modified_gmt":"2025-07-29T14:00:54","slug":"academic-publishing-much-effort-to-publish-too-little-to-correct","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/articles\/academic-publishing-much-effort-to-publish-too-little-to-correct\/","title":{"rendered":"Academic publishing: much effort to publish, too little to correct"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\"\"
\u00a9 Maurits Verbiest<\/a> Fickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to what is referred to as the scientific record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process begins with a manuscript that authors submit to a relevant journal for their field of research. The editorial review board, or an appointed scientific editor1<\/a><\/sup> determines whether the research fits the journal readership and aims. If the manuscript is considered to be suitable, it goes onto the next step: peer review. This is a crucial step to ensure, in theory<\/a>, that the research presented is sound and relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A rigorous process<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The editor plays an important role in this process. He or she selects two or three experts (called reviewers or referees) who assess the research and give their opinions. He or she is also responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request for more or less substantial revisions. In the latter case, authors revise their manuscripts, make amendments and improvements to meet the reviewers’ recommendations, and then resubmit the paper for a second round of review. This back-and-forth process can go on for quite a while, taking months or even years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the manuscript has been accepted, final modifications may be made during the proofreading process. Then, the content may no longer be changed; it is formatted according to the publisher’s graphic style guidelines and then published (online in the vast majority of cases). It is this official final version (version of record) that will become part of the scientific record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Contributing to scientific debate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The manuscript, which is now a published article, will then inform other research and in turn, other publications, which must cite it properly when referring to it. This is called a citation; from a formal viewpoint, it is above all a matter of crediting the other researchers and recognizing their contributions in the original research presented by a new paper. Citations are highly coveted. The sociologist Merton has presented them as a form of reward for authors, like a symbolic currency. Latour sees them as a powerful way to convey one’s ideas drawing on those of others. But not all citations are equal, and it is possible to refer to a study by pointing out to its flaws or by disagreeing with the author’s interpretation (for example, “In contradiction to what Dupont (2010) concluded in his study, we believe that\u2026”<\/em>). Critical citations are then an opportunity to correct an error in a peer’s analysis or reasoning. This type of citation was studied as part of an exploratory project hosted by \u00c9cole nationale des ponts et chauss\u00e9es in 2021<\/a>. In fact, the vast majority of citations are used in a neutral way, to provide context or a theoretical framework for the research presented. They are rarely positive \u2013 and even more rarely critical. This may appear paradoxical, since we know that knowledge is constructed through debate and discussions between scientists. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cumbersome correction processes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are obviously more formal forms of correction, by the journals themselves, which publish errata<\/em> and corrigenda<\/em>. When more serious mistakes are made or are the result of misconduct<\/a>, the disputed article is then retracted, meaning it is withdrawn from the scientific record so as not to mislead other researchers and contaminate their future research. But often, retractions occur too late, and the retracted article has already been used and cited dozens of times, therefore weakening the scientific record as a whole. Despite the obvious need to correct science and prevent the spread of false claims within the scientific community and beyond, journals are often reluctant to admit that errors or even fraud may have been overlooked. They fear that their reputation will be damaged, when in fact this process is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. The NanoBubbles<\/a> project (funded by the European Commission) is dedicated to analyzing mechanisms for correcting science and seeks to understand why corrective actions are sometimes made impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multiple challenges<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Maintaining the quality and reliability of the scientific record is not the only challenge facing scientific publishing. Many are concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on quantity (of publications and citations) and less on quality, in an environment where there is such a strong focus on excellence. Making science more open is another key issue, in terms of free access to both papers and supporting data. Lastly, recent advances in Artificial Intelligence \u2013 if not misused \u2013 may help alleviate the burden on reviewers in paper assessment and help authors by facilitating the paper-writing process. But some major publishers have already updated their editorial policies. For example, they prohibit ChatGPT from being listed as an author, let alone to allow a manuscript from an automatic text generation tool to be considered an original contribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, while scientific publishing has always evolved to meet the needs of the scientific community, progress still needs to be made to ensure the reliability of published findings through responsible and transparent publishing and editing practices.<\/p>\n\n\n

  1. French-speakers must be careful not to confuse the scientific editor who plays a role in assessing a manuscript, with “\u00e9diteur<\/em>” in French, which is expressed by publisher <\/em>in English. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":3825,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_related_content_post":[],"_related_content_subject":[124],"_related_content_author":[3904],"_related_content_category":[1720,1716],"_related_content_folder":[4198],"_excerpt":"Academic publishing is a key step in the research process as it enables researchers to share their findings. These findings then become knowledge available to the scientific community and the wider world. In the event of an error, the correction process may prove to be difficult or ultimately fail.<\/strong>
    \u00a0<\/strong>","_duration":4,"_manual_duration":false,"footnotes":"[{\"content\":\"French-speakers must be careful not to confuse the scientific editor who plays a role in assessing a manuscript, with \\\"\u00e9diteur<\/em>\\\" in French, which is expressed by publisher <\/em>in English.\",\"id\":\"d8617b9a-8207-4f90-9b16-23bd76fd922f\"}]"},"article-types":[27],"class_list":["post-3902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","article-types-folder"],"has_blocks":true,"block_data":[{"blockName":"enpc\/excerpt","attrs":{"lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[],"rendered":""},{"blockName":"core\/image","attrs":{"id":3825,"sizeSlug":"large","linkDestination":"none","align":"wide","blob":"","url":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/bandeau_publication-1024x633.jpg","alt":"","caption":"\u00a9\u00a0Maurits Verbiest\u00a0Fickr","lightbox":[],"title":"","href":"","rel":"","linkClass":"","width":"","height":"","aspectRatio":"","scale":"","linkTarget":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"wp-block-image alignwide size-large","style":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    \"\"
    \u00a9 Maurits Verbiest<\/a> Fickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","innerContent":["\n
    \"\"
    \u00a9 Maurits Verbiest<\/a> Fickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"],"rendered":"\n
    \"\"
    \u00a9 Maurits Verbiest<\/a> Fickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to what is referred to as the scientific record.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to what is referred to as the scientific record.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to what is referred to as the scientific record.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    To share their findings, researchers can choose to publish a paper in an academic journal. As such, they contribute to what is referred to as the scientific record.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"The process begins with a manuscript that authors submit to a relevant journal for their field of research. The editorial review board, or an appointed scientific editor1 determines whether the research fits the journal readership and aims. If the manuscript is considered to be suitable, it goes onto the next step: peer review. This is a crucial step to ensure, in theory, that the research presented is sound and relevant.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    The process begins with a manuscript that authors submit to a relevant journal for their field of research. The editorial review board, or an appointed scientific editor1<\/a><\/sup> determines whether the research fits the journal readership and aims. If the manuscript is considered to be suitable, it goes onto the next step: peer review. This is a crucial step to ensure, in theory<\/a>, that the research presented is sound and relevant.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    The process begins with a manuscript that authors submit to a relevant journal for their field of research. The editorial review board, or an appointed scientific editor1<\/a><\/sup> determines whether the research fits the journal readership and aims. If the manuscript is considered to be suitable, it goes onto the next step: peer review. This is a crucial step to ensure, in theory<\/a>, that the research presented is sound and relevant.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    The process begins with a manuscript that authors submit to a relevant journal for their field of research. The editorial review board, or an appointed scientific editor1<\/a><\/sup> determines whether the research fits the journal readership and aims. If the manuscript is considered to be suitable, it goes onto the next step: peer review. This is a crucial step to ensure, in theory<\/a>, that the research presented is sound and relevant.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/heading","attrs":{"textColor":"red","textAlign":"","content":"A rigorous process","level":2,"levelOptions":[],"placeholder":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","className":"wp-block-heading has-red-color has-text-color","style":"","backgroundColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    A rigorous process<\/h2>\n","innerContent":["\n

    A rigorous process<\/h2>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    A rigorous process<\/h2>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"The editor plays an important role in this process. He or she selects two or three experts (called reviewers or referees) who assess the research and give their opinions. He or she is also responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request for more or less substantial revisions. In the latter case, authors revise their manuscripts, make amendments and improvements to meet the reviewers' recommendations, and then resubmit the paper for a second round of review. This back-and-forth process can go on for quite a while, taking months or even years.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    The editor plays an important role in this process. He or she selects two or three experts (called reviewers or referees) who assess the research and give their opinions. He or she is also responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request for more or less substantial revisions. In the latter case, authors revise their manuscripts, make amendments and improvements to meet the reviewers' recommendations, and then resubmit the paper for a second round of review. This back-and-forth process can go on for quite a while, taking months or even years.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    The editor plays an important role in this process. He or she selects two or three experts (called reviewers or referees) who assess the research and give their opinions. He or she is also responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request for more or less substantial revisions. In the latter case, authors revise their manuscripts, make amendments and improvements to meet the reviewers' recommendations, and then resubmit the paper for a second round of review. This back-and-forth process can go on for quite a while, taking months or even years.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    The editor plays an important role in this process. He or she selects two or three experts (called reviewers or referees) who assess the research and give their opinions. He or she is also responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request for more or less substantial revisions. In the latter case, authors revise their manuscripts, make amendments and improvements to meet the reviewers' recommendations, and then resubmit the paper for a second round of review. This back-and-forth process can go on for quite a while, taking months or even years.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"Once the manuscript has been accepted, final modifications may be made during the proofreading process. Then, the content may no longer be changed; it is formatted according to the publisher's graphic style guidelines and then published (online in the vast majority of cases). It is this official final version (version of record) that will become part of the scientific record.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    Once the manuscript has been accepted, final modifications may be made during the proofreading process. Then, the content may no longer be changed; it is formatted according to the publisher's graphic style guidelines and then published (online in the vast majority of cases). It is this official final version (version of record) that will become part of the scientific record.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    Once the manuscript has been accepted, final modifications may be made during the proofreading process. Then, the content may no longer be changed; it is formatted according to the publisher's graphic style guidelines and then published (online in the vast majority of cases). It is this official final version (version of record) that will become part of the scientific record.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    Once the manuscript has been accepted, final modifications may be made during the proofreading process. Then, the content may no longer be changed; it is formatted according to the publisher's graphic style guidelines and then published (online in the vast majority of cases). It is this official final version (version of record) that will become part of the scientific record.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/heading","attrs":{"textColor":"red","textAlign":"","content":"Contributing to scientific debate","level":2,"levelOptions":[],"placeholder":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","className":"wp-block-heading has-red-color has-text-color","style":"","backgroundColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    <\/a>Contributing to scientific debate<\/h2>\n","innerContent":["\n

    <\/a>Contributing to scientific debate<\/h2>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    <\/a>Contributing to scientific debate<\/h2>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"The manuscript, which is now a published article, will then inform other research and in turn, other publications, which must cite it properly when referring to it. This is called a citation; from a formal viewpoint, it is above all a matter of crediting the other researchers and recognizing their contributions in the original research presented by a new paper. Citations are highly coveted. The sociologist Merton has presented them as a form of reward for authors, like a symbolic currency. Latour sees them as a powerful way to convey one's ideas drawing on those of others. But not all citations are equal, and it is possible to refer to a study by pointing out to its flaws or by disagreeing with the author's interpretation (for example, \"In contradiction to what Dupont (2010) concluded in his study, we believe that\u2026\"). Critical citations are then an opportunity to correct an error in a peer's analysis or reasoning. This type of citation was studied as part of an exploratory project hosted by \u00c9cole nationale des ponts et chauss\u00e9es in 2021. In fact, the vast majority of citations are used in a neutral way, to provide context or a theoretical framework for the research presented. They are rarely positive \u2013 and even more rarely critical. This may appear paradoxical, since we know that knowledge is constructed through debate and discussions between scientists. \u00a0","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    The manuscript, which is now a published article, will then inform other research and in turn, other publications, which must cite it properly when referring to it. This is called a citation; from a formal viewpoint, it is above all a matter of crediting the other researchers and recognizing their contributions in the original research presented by a new paper. Citations are highly coveted. The sociologist Merton has presented them as a form of reward for authors, like a symbolic currency. Latour sees them as a powerful way to convey one's ideas drawing on those of others. But not all citations are equal, and it is possible to refer to a study by pointing out to its flaws or by disagreeing with the author's interpretation (for example, \"In contradiction to what Dupont (2010) concluded in his study, we believe that\u2026\"<\/em>). Critical citations are then an opportunity to correct an error in a peer's analysis or reasoning. This type of citation was studied as part of an exploratory project hosted by \u00c9cole nationale des ponts et chauss\u00e9es in 2021<\/a>. In fact, the vast majority of citations are used in a neutral way, to provide context or a theoretical framework for the research presented. They are rarely positive \u2013 and even more rarely critical. This may appear paradoxical, since we know that knowledge is constructed through debate and discussions between scientists. \u00a0<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    The manuscript, which is now a published article, will then inform other research and in turn, other publications, which must cite it properly when referring to it. This is called a citation; from a formal viewpoint, it is above all a matter of crediting the other researchers and recognizing their contributions in the original research presented by a new paper. Citations are highly coveted. The sociologist Merton has presented them as a form of reward for authors, like a symbolic currency. Latour sees them as a powerful way to convey one's ideas drawing on those of others. But not all citations are equal, and it is possible to refer to a study by pointing out to its flaws or by disagreeing with the author's interpretation (for example, \"In contradiction to what Dupont (2010) concluded in his study, we believe that\u2026\"<\/em>). Critical citations are then an opportunity to correct an error in a peer's analysis or reasoning. This type of citation was studied as part of an exploratory project hosted by \u00c9cole nationale des ponts et chauss\u00e9es in 2021<\/a>. In fact, the vast majority of citations are used in a neutral way, to provide context or a theoretical framework for the research presented. They are rarely positive \u2013 and even more rarely critical. This may appear paradoxical, since we know that knowledge is constructed through debate and discussions between scientists. \u00a0<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    The manuscript, which is now a published article, will then inform other research and in turn, other publications, which must cite it properly when referring to it. This is called a citation; from a formal viewpoint, it is above all a matter of crediting the other researchers and recognizing their contributions in the original research presented by a new paper. Citations are highly coveted. The sociologist Merton has presented them as a form of reward for authors, like a symbolic currency. Latour sees them as a powerful way to convey one's ideas drawing on those of others. But not all citations are equal, and it is possible to refer to a study by pointing out to its flaws or by disagreeing with the author's interpretation (for example, \"In contradiction to what Dupont (2010) concluded in his study, we believe that\u2026\"<\/em>). Critical citations are then an opportunity to correct an error in a peer's analysis or reasoning. This type of citation was studied as part of an exploratory project hosted by \u00c9cole nationale des ponts et chauss\u00e9es in 2021<\/a>. In fact, the vast majority of citations are used in a neutral way, to provide context or a theoretical framework for the research presented. They are rarely positive \u2013 and even more rarely critical. This may appear paradoxical, since we know that knowledge is constructed through debate and discussions between scientists. \u00a0<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/heading","attrs":{"textColor":"red","textAlign":"","content":"Cumbersome correction processes","level":2,"levelOptions":[],"placeholder":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","className":"wp-block-heading has-red-color has-text-color","style":"","backgroundColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    Cumbersome correction processes<\/h2>\n","innerContent":["\n

    Cumbersome correction processes<\/h2>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    Cumbersome correction processes<\/h2>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"There are obviously more formal forms of correction, by the journals themselves, which publish errata and corrigenda. When more serious mistakes are made or are the result of misconduct, the disputed article is then retracted, meaning it is withdrawn from the scientific record so as not to mislead other researchers and contaminate their future research. But often, retractions occur too late, and the retracted article has already been used and cited dozens of times, therefore weakening the scientific record as a whole. Despite the obvious need to correct science and prevent the spread of false claims within the scientific community and beyond, journals are often reluctant to admit that errors or even fraud may have been overlooked. They fear that their reputation will be damaged, when in fact this process is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. The NanoBubbles project (funded by the European Commission) is dedicated to analyzing mechanisms for correcting science and seeks to understand why corrective actions are sometimes made impossible.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    There are obviously more formal forms of correction, by the journals themselves, which publish errata<\/em> and corrigenda<\/em>. When more serious mistakes are made or are the result of misconduct<\/a>, the disputed article is then retracted, meaning it is withdrawn from the scientific record so as not to mislead other researchers and contaminate their future research. But often, retractions occur too late, and the retracted article has already been used and cited dozens of times, therefore weakening the scientific record as a whole. Despite the obvious need to correct science and prevent the spread of false claims within the scientific community and beyond, journals are often reluctant to admit that errors or even fraud may have been overlooked. They fear that their reputation will be damaged, when in fact this process is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. The NanoBubbles<\/a> project (funded by the European Commission) is dedicated to analyzing mechanisms for correcting science and seeks to understand why corrective actions are sometimes made impossible.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    There are obviously more formal forms of correction, by the journals themselves, which publish errata<\/em> and corrigenda<\/em>. When more serious mistakes are made or are the result of misconduct<\/a>, the disputed article is then retracted, meaning it is withdrawn from the scientific record so as not to mislead other researchers and contaminate their future research. But often, retractions occur too late, and the retracted article has already been used and cited dozens of times, therefore weakening the scientific record as a whole. Despite the obvious need to correct science and prevent the spread of false claims within the scientific community and beyond, journals are often reluctant to admit that errors or even fraud may have been overlooked. They fear that their reputation will be damaged, when in fact this process is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. The NanoBubbles<\/a> project (funded by the European Commission) is dedicated to analyzing mechanisms for correcting science and seeks to understand why corrective actions are sometimes made impossible.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    There are obviously more formal forms of correction, by the journals themselves, which publish errata<\/em> and corrigenda<\/em>. When more serious mistakes are made or are the result of misconduct<\/a>, the disputed article is then retracted, meaning it is withdrawn from the scientific record so as not to mislead other researchers and contaminate their future research. But often, retractions occur too late, and the retracted article has already been used and cited dozens of times, therefore weakening the scientific record as a whole. Despite the obvious need to correct science and prevent the spread of false claims within the scientific community and beyond, journals are often reluctant to admit that errors or even fraud may have been overlooked. They fear that their reputation will be damaged, when in fact this process is essential to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. The NanoBubbles<\/a> project (funded by the European Commission) is dedicated to analyzing mechanisms for correcting science and seeks to understand why corrective actions are sometimes made impossible.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/heading","attrs":{"textColor":"red","textAlign":"","content":"Multiple challenges","level":2,"levelOptions":[],"placeholder":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","className":"wp-block-heading has-red-color has-text-color","style":"","backgroundColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    Multiple challenges<\/h2>\n","innerContent":["\n

    Multiple challenges<\/h2>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    Multiple challenges<\/h2>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"Maintaining the quality and reliability of the scientific record is not the only challenge facing scientific publishing. Many are concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on quantity (of publications and citations) and less on quality, in an environment where there is such a strong focus on excellence. Making science more open is another key issue, in terms of free access to both papers and supporting data. Lastly, recent advances in Artificial Intelligence \u2013 if not misused \u2013 may help alleviate the burden on reviewers in paper assessment and help authors by facilitating the paper-writing process. But some major publishers have already updated their editorial policies. For example, they prohibit ChatGPT from being listed as an author, let alone to allow a manuscript from an automatic text generation tool to be considered an original contribution.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    Maintaining the quality and reliability of the scientific record is not the only challenge facing scientific publishing. Many are concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on quantity (of publications and citations) and less on quality, in an environment where there is such a strong focus on excellence. Making science more open is another key issue, in terms of free access to both papers and supporting data. Lastly, recent advances in Artificial Intelligence \u2013 if not misused \u2013 may help alleviate the burden on reviewers in paper assessment and help authors by facilitating the paper-writing process. But some major publishers have already updated their editorial policies. For example, they prohibit ChatGPT from being listed as an author, let alone to allow a manuscript from an automatic text generation tool to be considered an original contribution.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    Maintaining the quality and reliability of the scientific record is not the only challenge facing scientific publishing. Many are concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on quantity (of publications and citations) and less on quality, in an environment where there is such a strong focus on excellence. Making science more open is another key issue, in terms of free access to both papers and supporting data. Lastly, recent advances in Artificial Intelligence \u2013 if not misused \u2013 may help alleviate the burden on reviewers in paper assessment and help authors by facilitating the paper-writing process. But some major publishers have already updated their editorial policies. For example, they prohibit ChatGPT from being listed as an author, let alone to allow a manuscript from an automatic text generation tool to be considered an original contribution.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    Maintaining the quality and reliability of the scientific record is not the only challenge facing scientific publishing. Many are concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on quantity (of publications and citations) and less on quality, in an environment where there is such a strong focus on excellence. Making science more open is another key issue, in terms of free access to both papers and supporting data. Lastly, recent advances in Artificial Intelligence \u2013 if not misused \u2013 may help alleviate the burden on reviewers in paper assessment and help authors by facilitating the paper-writing process. But some major publishers have already updated their editorial policies. For example, they prohibit ChatGPT from being listed as an author, let alone to allow a manuscript from an automatic text generation tool to be considered an original contribution.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":{"align":"","content":"In short, while scientific publishing has always evolved to meet the needs of the scientific community, progress still needs to be made to ensure the reliability of published findings through responsible and transparent publishing and editing practices.","dropCap":false,"placeholder":"","direction":"","lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n

    In short, while scientific publishing has always evolved to meet the needs of the scientific community, progress still needs to be made to ensure the reliability of published findings through responsible and transparent publishing and editing practices.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n

    In short, while scientific publishing has always evolved to meet the needs of the scientific community, progress still needs to be made to ensure the reliability of published findings through responsible and transparent publishing and editing practices.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n

    In short, while scientific publishing has always evolved to meet the needs of the scientific community, progress still needs to be made to ensure the reliability of published findings through responsible and transparent publishing and editing practices.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/footnotes","attrs":{"lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":"","style":"","backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":""},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[],"rendered":""}],"seo":{"title":"Academic publishing: much effort to publish, too little to correct"},"media":{"img":"\"\"","src":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/bandeau_publication-scaled.jpg"},"url":"\/en\/articles\/academic-publishing-much-effort-to-publish-too-little-to-correct\/","related":{"post":[],"author":[{"title":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Bordignon","url":"\/en\/authors\/frederic-bordignon\/","id":"3904","media":"\"\"","slug":"frederic-bordignon"}],"subject":[{"title":"Economics & Society","url":"\/en\/subjects\/economics-society\/","id":"124","media":"\"\"","slug":"economics-society"}],"category":[{"title":"Article collection","url":"\/en\/articles\/category\/dossier\/","id":"1720","media":"","slug":"dossier","_related_post_type":"folder"},{"title":"Articles","url":"\/en\/articles\/category\/articles\/","id":"1716","media":"","slug":"articles","_related_post_type":""}],"folder":[{"title":"Scientific Integrity","url":"\/en\/folders\/scientific-integrity\/","id":"4198","media":"\"\"","slug":"scientific-integrity"}]},"translated":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/articles\/publication-scientifique-beaucoup-defforts-pour-publier-trop-peu-pour-corriger\/","icon":"icon-folder","duration":"4","custom_excerpt":"Academic publishing is a key step in the research process as it enables researchers to share their findings. These findings then become knowledge available to the scientific community and the wider world. In the event of an error, the correction process may prove to be difficult or ultimately fail.<\/strong>
    \u00a0<\/strong>","duration_type":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3902"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3902\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8976,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3902\/revisions\/8976"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"article-types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ingenius.ecoledesponts.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-types?post=3902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}