How CIOs can use academic research for tech trends

“Finding fraud in research papers is something I do on the side. Looking for such papers, criticising and reviewing them should be part of a scientist’ mandate in general,” he said at the 12th Heidelberg Laureate Forum (HLF) for young researchers in mathematics and computer science in Heidelberg, Germany. - a quote from Lonni Besançon, an assistant professor of data visualisation at Linköping University in Sweden in the University World News article on the link below. Should finding fraud in research be part of the scientists mandate in the 21st century? What tools need to be in place to make this possible? #publishingintegrity #scholarlypublishing #peerreview

"Influential list of highly cited #researchers now shuts out more #scientists: here’s why - Rule change weeds out many who co-author papers with others linked to suspicious practices." By Nicola Jones, 12 November 2025, Nature ..."The rules for the 2025 version of the influential Highly Cited Scientists list exclude scientists whose co-authors have engaged in practices such as a tendency to cite their own papers."   "The creators of an influential list of highly cited researchers have shaken up their methodology this year, taking a swipe at scientists who associate with those linked to possible #ethical breaches. The new rules have allowed the field of #mathematics to return to the list, after being excluded for the past two years owing to concerns over suspicious #citation patterns." "The Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) list is produced by the multinational data-analytics company Clarivate, which also owns the Web of Science database. The list aims to recognize contemporary researchers with “significant and broad influence”, who are among the authors of papers that are in the top 1% in their field by number of citations. The programme recognizes thousands of individuals each year across 21 natural- and social-science fields and factors into influential rankings of #universities." "Thousands of highly cited scientists have at least one retraction This year, the list was compiled with a new step: exclusion of any papers with an author who had been knocked off the previous year’s HCR list owing to research-integrity issues. This means that anyone who routinely co-authored papers with someone who’d been excluded in the previous year was less likely to be acknowledged than before the change." "“It’s quite a good idea. It’s a big cleaning,” says Lauranne Chaignon, a bibliometrician at PSL University in Paris, who has studied the HCR list1. There is, she adds, a small chance of removing a deserving scientist. This year’s list, announced today, recognizes 6,868 people." https://lnkd.in/gf78Zc9V

𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 How can Europe and Denmark maintain a strong position in the digital transformation? At the Digital Tech Summit, our Head of Department at DTU Compute, Jan Madsen, highlighted an important point: we need graduates who can speak both the language of computing and the language of their field, like science, construction, biotechnology, and health. “The challenge is that if you just hire the best data scientists, they can be super-efficient, but there may be a gap to other domains. Innovation does not happen simply by putting data scientists and biologists in the same room. We need to challenge this gap, and one way to do that is to create programmes that combine clear elements from both computing and the domain in question. The goal is for graduates to have competence in at least two domains. That is what we mean by scientific bilingualism,” he said. Read more about 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, the 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬, and 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 for both universities and industry – and Denmark and Europe in the story on our website. Find the link in the comments. #dkforsk #computing #scientificbilingualism #ai Photo: Mikal Schlosser

https://lnkd.in/eYeDJ7-h Find out how AI-powered tools can help researchers choose the best journals for publication based on scope and impact.

Big news for life science researchers, institutions, and R&D in corporations! Peer-reviewed content from Wiley journals is now available through Scholar Gateway directly in the MCP Directory as a connector for Claude for Life Sciences — no platform switching required. Here's what this means: ✔️ Researchers: Claude’s responses provide relevant snippets of scientific content from authoritative Wiley scholarly sources, with direct DOI links allowing you to access full papers with one click ✔️ Institutions: Authenticated access respects your Wiley institutional subscriptions and enhances usage, even when researchers aren’t accessing content directly through Wiley Online Library The result? Faster discovery of reliable, citable, peer-reviewed insights without leaving your AI research assistant — no app switching, no friction, just answers. This is AI-powered discovery built on scholarly foundations you can trust. Read more here: https://ow.ly/11UT50Xfp5f Connect with us at Libraryinfo@wiley.com

Shouldn’t every research journal include a Plain Language Summary? The "Gap" still largely exists because most scientific articles are written exclusively for specialist readers and often locked behind paywalls. Too many technical jargons, inexplicable statistics, and very few efforts to actually communicate science. I strongly believe that a Plain Language Summary (PLS) should be mandatory in all journals — and made freely accessible even to non-subscribers. A simple, non-technical summary (100–200 words) written for policymakers, startups, educators, students, and the general public can drastically improve the visibility, translational value, and societal adoption of scientific work. Some journals have already taken great steps toward this, but it’s time this becomes standard across all publishers, not an exception. Science shouldn’t just be discoverable, it should be understandable. Would love to hear what fellow researchers think — should Plain Language Summaries become a universal requirement?

some facts here. Quality science, research, development of new/pushing techniques requires experience. I also do see unfortunately a trend putting almost exclusively "fresh men" to work only with little to zero presence of experienced more senior scientists in the labs hands on guiding and participating -- at least been more involved than discussing progress after the fact exclusively. There are only very few (able of, or sacrificing promotions?) taking this extra time away from "Grant writing and like requirements". But what can we do here to counter this.

Stanford just accepted and recognized a research paper co-authored by a high school student and AI. At Agents4Science 2025, the world’s first AI-author-centric academic conference, one of the ten spotlight papers wasn’t from a PhD. It was from Jaeyoung Choi, a first-year high school student from Korea. He used Liner's AI agents as a research partner, brainstorming hypotheses, finding citations, and even running peer review before submission. The next generation of discovery won’t begin only in universities or research labs. AI is already lowering the barriers to research and making science accessible to anyone curious. Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/gDhvrj4c Special thanks to the organizers of Agents4Science 2025 for leading this new chapter of AI-driven research! James Zou Owen Queen Nitya Thakkar Eric Sun Federico Bianchi

PaperScore envisions a future where scientific publishing is governed by intelligence—both artificial and collective—rather than editorial gatekeeping. By replacing traditional editorial boards with an AI-driven evaluation system, PaperScore ensures that every manuscript is assessed purely on its merits. Leveraging fine-tuned domain-specific LLMs, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and multi-task learning architectures, PaperScore provides precise, consistent, and impartial manuscript evaluations across all four critical dimensions: Writing & Composition, Rigor & Validity, Novelty & Contribution, and Importance & Value. This approach minimizes human biases, democratizes the research publication process, and fosters a transparent, meritocratic ecosystem for scientific research. By removing artificial publication barriers while enhancing quality standards through quantifiable, multi-dimensional assessment, PaperScore accelerates scientific progress without compromising rigor. This platform fosters an impartial, interdisciplinary, and transparent research ecosystem, pioneering an open-access paradigm where scientific contributions are judged solely on their intrinsic merit. Hopefully, PaperScore will increase cross-disciplinary citations in all research areas and will improve publication opportunities for researchers from underrepresented institutions. Beyond research publishing, PaperScore's specialized evaluative AI extends to patent evaluation, grant review, and content moderation, transforming scholarly communication across industries. PaperScore is more than an alternative to traditional publishing—it is the future of knowledge validation and dissemination. #researchpublication #research #researcher #paperscore #science #scientificpapers #scholar #academic

OpenRead Academy is an AI-powered academic research platform designed to make reading, understanding, and analyzing scholarly papers faster and more efficient. https://lnkd.in/eYQyZZaR