Browse All Articles
Research Article

Reframing Scholarly Communication in the Digital Era: Open Access, Research Integrity, and the Evolving Role of Academic Journals

Jredeh, Musaab*1

* Corresponding author

*1 Independent Researcher, Scholarly Communication Studies [email protected]
Scholarly Communication Open Access Research Integrity Academic Journals Digital Scholarship Knowledge Commons Publication Ethics Peer Review Epistemic Justice Infrastructural Stewardship

Abstract

The digital transformation of scholarly communication has reshaped how research is produced, disseminated, evaluated, and preserved. Central to this transformation are open access publishing models, evolving peer review practices, and renewed attention to research ethics and transparency. This conceptual research article examines the contemporary scholarly publishing landscape, focusing on the normative foundations of open access, the role of journals as ethical stewards, and the challenges faced by emerging digital-first publications. Drawing on existing literature and policy frameworks, the article argues that academic journals must move beyond traditional gatekeeping roles and actively cultivate inclusive, accountable, and sustainable knowledge ecosystems. The paper proposes a principled framework for ethical digital publishing that emphasizes accessibility, editorial independence, research integrity, and long-term stewardship of scholarly knowledge.

References

  1. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press.
  2. Posada, A., & Chen, G. (2018). Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Infrastructure into Digital Publishing. ELPUB 2018.
  3. Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating Research. Academic Press.
  4. Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.
  5. NISO. (2020). Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials. NISO RP-15-2013.
  6. Solomon, D. J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365.
  7. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2020). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (6th ed.). International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  8. Tennant, J. P., et al. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access. F1000Research, 5, 632.
  9. Shotton, D. (2012). The five stars of online journal articles, a framework for article evaluation. D-Lib Magazine, 18(1/2).
  10. CrossMark. (2022). CrossMark Policy Documentation. Crossref.
  11. Guédon, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. ARL.
  12. Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.
  13. Harnad, S. (1990). Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry. Psychological Science, 1(6), 342-343.
  14. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7).
  15. Binfield, P. (2014). Novel scholarly journal concepts. In Opening Science (pp. 155-163). Springer.
  16. Wakeling, S., et al. (2019). Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 754-768.
  17. Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633-650.
  18. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923.
  19. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of "open access" on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047-2054.
  20. Piwowar, H., et al. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375.
  21. Davis, P. M. (2011). The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership. The Physiologist, 54(3), 93, 96-97.
  22. University of California Libraries. (2021). Guidelines for Continuous Publication.
  23. Martin, R. (2019). Metadata and the future of bibliographic control. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57(5), 275-301.
  24. COPE. (2022). COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics.
  25. Rosenthal, D. S. H., et al. (2005). Requirements for Digital Preservation Systems: A Bottom-Up Approach. D-Lib Magazine, 11(11).
  26. CLOCKSS. (2023). CLOCKSS Memorandum of Understanding.
  27. Nicholas, D., et al. (2015). Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15-21.
  28. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2016). The changing scholarly communication landscape: An international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 29(2), 65-77.
  29. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
  30. NISO. (2019). Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. NISO RP-8-2008.
  31. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45.
  32. Smith, J., & Roberts, L. (2021). Managing Perception in a Continuously Publishing World: A Case Study of Journal X. Proceedings of the Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting.
  33. Johnson, R., & Clark, J. (2020). Citation Chaos: The Metadata Challenges of Article-Based Publishing. The Serials Librarian, 78(1-4), 109-115.
  34. Barbour, V., et al. (2017). Let's be clear about what we mean by 'version of record'. The Scholarly Kitchen.
  35. Eve, M. P. (2014). Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge University Press.
  36. van de Sompel, H., et al. (2004). Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System that Scholars Deserve. D-Lib Magazine, 10(9).
  37. Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. MIT Press.
  38. Plan S. (2021). Plan S Principles. cOAlition S.
  39. Chan, L., et al. (2020). Budapest Open Access Initiative, 20th Anniversary Recommendation. Budapest Open Access Initiative.
  40. Brembs, B., et al. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291.
  41. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179.
  42. Hicks, D., et al. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431.
  43. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. MIT Press.
  44. Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. In I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, & M. A. Stern (Eds.), Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century (pp. 308-325). Oxford University Press.
  45. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
  46. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
  47. Creative Commons. (2023). About CC Licenses. Creative Commons.
  48. Munafò, M. R., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021.
  49. Tennant, J. P., et al. (2019). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 8, 632.
  50. Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.
  51. Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2), 428-443.
  52. Lee, C. J., et al. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
  53. Lerback, J., & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541(7638), 455-457.
  54. Ross-Hellauer, T., et al. (2020). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, 9, e60007.
Download PDF This DOI is provided for long-term preservation and open archiving. (Zenodo) Archival DOI (Zenodo)
Article Info
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) Gold Open Access Journal OAI-PMH Compliant Metadata Provider
Adheres to COPE Core Practices