Nearly 3,000 peer-reviewed medical papers have fake citations, a Columbia Nursing AI-assisted audit finds; Columbia, May 8, 2026

 Columbia ; Nearly 3,000 peer-reviewed medical papers have fake citations, a Columbia Nursing AI-assisted audit finds

"A new Columbia University School of Nursing AI-assisted audit reveals nearly 3,000 peer-reviewed medical papers have fake citations that do not exist in scientific databases. The results highlight an alarming trend in academic publishing as the use of AI grows.  The peer-reviewed research letter, “Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers, was published in The Lancet on May 7, 2026."

Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? – podcast; The Guardian, October 2, 2025

 Presented and produced by Madeleine Finlay, with Ian Sample. Sound design by Ross Burns, the executive producer was Ellie Bury; Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? – podcast

"Scientists are warning that academic publishing needs urgent reform in order to retain trust in the research system. Ian Sample tells Madeleine Finlay what has gone so wrong, and Dr Mark Hanson of the University of Exeter proposes some potential solutions

Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

This podcast was amended on 2 October 2025 to include information about how AI is being used to spot low quality papers."

Academic Book About Emojis Can’t Include The Emojis It Talks About Because Of Copyright; Techdirt, August 4, 2023

Mike Masnick, Techdirt ; Academic Book About Emojis Can’t Include The Emojis It Talks About Because Of Copyright

"Sounds interesting enough, but as Goldman highlights with an image from the book, Kiaer was apparently unable to actually show examples of many of the emoji she was discussing due to copyright fears. While companies like Twitter and Google have offered up their own emoji sets under open licenses, not all of them have, and some of the specifics about the variations in how different companies represent different emoji apparently were key to the book...

Now, my first reaction to this is that using the emoji and stickers and whatnot in the book seems like a very clear fair use situation. But… that requires a publisher willing to take up the fight (and an insurance company behind the publisher willing to finance that fight). And, that often doesn’t happen. Publishers are notoriously averse to supporting fair use, because they don’t want to get sued.

But, really, this just ends up highlighting (once again) the absolute ridiculousness of copyright in the modern world. No one in their right mind would think that a book about emoji is somehow harming the market for whatever emoji or stickers the professor wished to include. Yet, due to the nature of copyright, here we are. With an academic book about emoji that can’t even include the emoji being spoken about."

Past coronavirus: an open-access future for academics; The Bowdoin Orient, April 3, 2020

Radu Stochita, The Bowdoin Orient; Past coronavirus: an open-access future for academics

"What Aaron Swartz left us is the courage to try and break the wall that exists between the public and the profit-driven industry of academic publishing. In his eyes, information was meant to be free and accessible. Progress was meant for the common good, in the benefit of everyone, not only for a selected few."

The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism Editorial; March 4, 2019

The Guardian; The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism  

Editorial

"In California the state university system has been paying $11m (£8.3m) a year for access to Elsevier journals, but it has just announced that it won’t be renewing these subscriptions. In Britain and Europe the move towards open access publishing has been driven by funding bodies. In some ways it has been very successful. More than half of all British scientific research is now published under open access terms: either freely available from the moment of publication, or paywalled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release.

Yet, somehow, the new system has not yet worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their writers fees to cover the costs of preparing an article. These range from around £500 to $5,000, and apparently the work gets more expensive the more that publishers do it. A report last year from Professor Adam Tickell pointed out that the costs both of subscriptions and of these “article preparation costs” has been steadily rising at a rate above inflation ever since the UK’s open access policy was adopted in 2012. In some ways the scientific publishing model resembles the economy of the social internet: labour is provided free in exchange for the hope of status, while huge profits are made by a few big firms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power."
 

Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing; Inside Higher Ed, November 5, 2018

Hans De Wit and Phillip G. Altbach and Betty Leask, Inside Higher Ed; Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing

[Kip Currier: Important reading and a much-needed perspective to challenge the status quo!

I just recently was expressing aspects of this article to an academic colleague: For too long the dominant view of what constitutes "an academic" has been too parochial and prescriptive.

The academy should and must expand its notions of teaching, research, and service, in order to be more truly inclusive and acknowledge diverse kinds of knowledge and humans extant in our world.]

"We must find ways to ensure that equal respect, recognition and reward is given to excellence in teaching, research and service by institutional leaders, governments, publishers, university ranking and accreditation schemes."