Through data extraction from different data sources, collation of urban pub-lic policies, auto-ethnography and exploratory netnography, this article reveals how the implementation of the 15-minute city model in Barcelona (Spain) – one of the flagship cities for the 15-minute city model in Europe – parallels the decline of the city’s nightlife industry over the past decade, despite the fact that access to culture and leisure is a fundamental pillar of the 15-minute city model. The article ends up by arguing that the imple-mentation of the 15-minute city model in Barcelona could also be seen as enacting a cultural and moral agenda for the promotion of “good leisure”, and, by extension, the “good citizen” in the 15-minute city Barcelona.

This policy page defines the publication and DOI practices of Ivory Tower Journal. Its purpose is to establish a clear public record of how the journal assigns, maintains, and governs digital object identifiers for published works. The policy explains the criteria for publication, the standards for DOI registration, the relationship between article landing pages and permanent identifiers, and the journal’s commitment to persistence, transparency, and metadata integrity. It also clarifies how updates, corrections, withdrawals, replacements, and revised versions are handled so that readers, indexers, and citation systems can distinguish the version of record from subsequent amendments. By publishing this policy as a citable document with its own DOI, Ivory Tower Journal affirms that publication is not merely the posting of content, but the creation of a stable, traceable scholarly record. This page serves as the formal reference point for the journal’s publication workflow, DOI structure, and long-term stewardship obligations.

In the post-Jeffrey Beall predatory publishing era, an informational vacuum emerged, partly because few individuals, action groups or policy makers have been able to effectively or distinctly appreciate the confines of this phenomenon. An action group that emerged in 2017 is the KScien Organization for Scientific Research (KScien), an Iraq-based nonprofit organization. KScien maintains a set of publishing watchlists that were based on those curated by Beall but that KScien claims to be building and fortifying. This paper critically assesses the KScien website to appreciate its organizational structure, and briefly assesses the main publications on predatory publishing.

Artificial intelligence in scholarly peer review: a scoping review of applications, risks, and governance challenges.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the practice of science, including the field of entomology. Once viewed primarily as a tool for data analysis, AI is now reshaping publishing, research, and teaching in ways that raise both opportunities and concerns. To capture this pivotal moment, we organized a symposium at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America titled “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Entomology: An Aid to Publishing, Research, and Teaching.” Presentations highlighted diverse applications of AI, from generative models that translate Extension materials for underserved audiences, to computer vision systems detecting stored product pests, to tools accelerating the digitization of insect collections, and to experimental manipulations of dominance hierarchies in social insects. Collectively, these case studies illustrate how AI can enhance efficiency, expand the scope of questions that can be asked, and democratize access to advanced research tools. At the same time, they emphasize the importance of careful oversight, given risks such as mistranslations, misclassifications, and overreliance on generative outputs. Beyond research, AI is already reshaping scientific publishing. Drawing on symposium discussions and a review of current policies, we propose baseline recommendations for authors, reviewers, and editors that are now integrated into Entomological Society of America publishing policies. These include transparent disclosure of AI use in acknowledgments and methods, alongside clear boundaries on acceptable applications. Our synthesis underscores that while AI can accelerate entomological science, ongoing dialogue, validation, and ethical guardrails are essential to ensuring trust, integrity, and creativity in the discipline.

This article presents a systematic analysis of the historical development, institutional transformations, and contemporary challenges of book publishing across the African continent. The study adopts a broad chronological perspective, ranging from early manuscript traditions in regions such as Timbuktu and North Africa to colonial-era printing activities, missionary publishing practices, post-independence national publishing policies, and recent processes of digital transformation within the context of globalization. The analysis demonstrates that the African publishing sector is shaped by key structural factors, including linguistic diversity, limited readership capacity, copyright regulation, distribution infrastructure, and varying levels of state support. These factors collectively influence both the constraints and the developmental potential of publishing systems across the continent. The findings indicate that digital technologies, international cooperation, and expanding access to knowledge create new opportunities for the sustainable development of African publishing. The integration of traditional publishing practices with contemporary technological systems is identified as a central pathway for strengthening the position of African publishing within the global knowledge economy.

Is the Porter Hypothesis more relevant today than 30 years ago? Bibliometric and content analysis.

The journal Health has published interdisciplinary scholarship on the social dimensions of health and illness since 1997. Despite rich thematic syntheses at milestone anniversaries, no study has systematically examined how research designs, data collection techniques, and analytic frameworks have evolved to shape the journal's empirical output. This critical scoping review maps the evolution of methodological ecosystems in the journal Health's empirical articles from 1997 to 2025, examining which research traditions have structured the journal's output, how these have changed over time, and how institutional pressures-particularly cross-sectional design bias-have shaped research temporality. A comprehensive search of the journal Health's archives identified 692 empirical articles, which were coded in MAXQDA 2024 for research design, temporal orientation, data collection methods, analytical techniques, theoretical paradigm, and reporting clarity, and then clustered using code co-occurrence networks and modularity-based community detection to identify five methodological ecosystems. Five distinct ecosystems structure the journal's research-quantitative positivism, qualitative interpretivism, ethnographic and observational inquiry, mixed-methods integration, and critical/discourse-oriented research-with cross-sectional designs dominating 78% of studies across all traditions, likely reflecting funding cycles, publication timelines, and career pressures rather than paradigmatic commitments. Over three decades, quantitative positivism declined from over half of published output in the late 1990s to under one quarter by 2025, while qualitative, ethnographic, mixed-methods, and critical approaches collectively increased from 17% to 46%, with notable inflection points including a qualitative "breakthrough" around 2012, an ethnographic resurgence after 2020, and methodological convergence across all ecosystems by 2023. The analysis theorizes these patterns as expressions of institutional cross-sectionalism, whereby structural constraints compress temporal depth even in paradigms that value process, and argues that advancing interdisciplinary health scholarship requires structural reforms in funding, publication policy, career evaluation, and methodological infrastructure to support longitudinal, immersive, and participatory inquiry.

The improvement of apparatus (National Civil Apparatus/ASN) competency is an important part of realizing the standards of the nation through effective government institutions. The apparatus must be staffed by knowledgeable and professional individuals, commonly known as merit system. In this context, the deployment of several merit systems in ASN management has reported unsatisfactory results. Therefore, this research aims to examine merit system policy in Indonesian government and the influencing elements, with an emphasis on central ministries and institutions. A qualitative descriptive method was used with a constructivist paradigm, and data analysis adopted triangulation. Data collection was conducted through in-depth interviews with eight purposively selected key informants, focus group discussions (FGD), observations, literature reviews, and official government reports. The results showed that the implementation of merit system policy at Ministry/Institution level was categorized as good based on eight aspects of the assessment prepared by KemenPAN-RB (Ministry of State Apparatus Utilization and Bureaucratic Reform). However, there were several ministries and institutions with low scores, and the challenges were difficult since National Civil Apparatus Committee (KASN) was disbanded. The research concludes that while Indonesia’s government has generally implemented the merit system well, career development and promotion are hindered by inadequate talent management and ambiguous policies, with environmental factors, proficient human resources, infrastructure, and digital systems acting as critical determinants.

Introduction. Open access to scholarly knowledge is a core element of contemporary scholarly publishing policy and is actively promoted at both international and national levels. At the same time, empirical research shows that principled support for open access is not always accompanied by a uniform interpretation or consistent institutional implementation. In this context, the position of journal editors is of particular interest, as they are the actors who directly shape editorial policy and the dissemination practices of scholarly publications. Purpose. To identify which definitions and key features of open access dominate in the perceptions of editors of Russian scholarly journals, and how these perceptions are reflected in stated editorial policies and in journals’ actual practices. Materials and Methods. The study draws on data from an online survey of editors of Russian scholarly journals (N = 138) representing a range of subject areas and serving as editors-in-chief, deputy editors, managing editors, and scientific editors. The questionnaire included closed- and open-ended items designed to elicit normative orientations and practices related to open access. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Results. According to the survey (N = 138), most respondents declare support for open access, yet their understanding of it is heterogeneous: responses to the question about the definition of open access were distributed almost evenly between interpreting open access as free access to the full text and understanding it as a regime that entails additional reuse rights/licensing. At the level of implementation, the study identifies a persistent gap between the declared access model and its institutional articulation: although 89.9% of editorial teams characterize their content dissemination as immediate open access, 18.8% of journals provide no information about open access on their websites. Conceptual ambiguity is also evident in the classification of open access models: about one third of respondents do not distinguish the typology, which correlates with fragmented licensing and contractual practices and limited digital infrastructure. Publication fees are not the dominant mechanism and are generally viewed critically by editors. Conclusion. The findings suggest that within the Russian editorial community, open access functions primarily as a normative orientation rather than as a fully institutionalized journal model. The study highlights the need to shift discussions of open access from declarative support toward the operationalization of legal, infrastructural, and organizational mechanisms that ensure the sustainability and reproducibility of open scholarly dissemination practices.

The Gering Agung Pararem or a great agreement on pandemic protection is one of the public policies based on the Balinese Village law to control the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. This Pararem is regulated to manage and control the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic by utilising the concept of duality known as sekala (material) and niskala (immaterial). This research aims to discover the duality application in the Gering Agung Pararem from a public policy perspective in Bali. With exploratory descriptive qualitative approach, this study reveals that the involvement of duality concept in the Gering Agung Pararem has a crucial impact on preventing the Covid-19 spreads in Bali. In addition, the social, cultural, and religious systems influence the Balinese people to be very obedient towards the existing village policies. This study contributes to society by developing alternative solutions for preventing Covid-19 spreads in Bali.

The collaborative efforts between GOG and LACOG are aimed at advancing clinical oncology research through strategic global partnerships, particularly related to the conduct of clinical trials. Herein, we provide the framework of this relationship addressing key operational components including establishing a shared Publication Policy. In addition, this initiative seeks to standardize contributions, recognize authorship fairly, and ensure compliance with agreed protocols. Emphasis is placed on critical practices like study design, data interpretation, manuscript development, and intellectual review. The Policy considers the roles of individual scientists, institutional sponsors, and contributors while ensuring transparency and authenticity in scientific communication. This collaborative approach underscores the importance of collective expertise in addressing global challenges in oncology and fostering innovation through multi-institutional cooperation. The manuscript outlines the processes for critical review, approval, and publication, ensuring credibility in the dissemination of scientific findings to the community. These frameworks aim to promote inclusivity, equitable representation, and the advancement of oncology knowledge.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into academic publishing presents new opportunities and ethical challenges. Transparent editorial oversight is essential, yet the extent of GenAI policy adoption among vascular surgery journals remains unclear. We conducted a cross-sectional review of vascular surgery journals indexed in the 2024 Scimago Journal Rank and Google Scholar Metrics. Eligible journals were active, peer-reviewed titles regularly publishing vascular surgery research. As of June 12, 2025, 2 independent reviewers assessed author instructions, journal websites, and publisher policies for GenAI-related guidance. Extracted variables included permitted GenAI applications (e.g., language editing, image generation), disclosure requirements, authorship restrictions, naming of specific tools, and human accountability clauses. Journal characteristics-geographic origin, Scimago Journal Rank quartile, and H-index-were also recorded. Descriptive statistics and Welch's t-tests were used for analysis. Of 25 journals evaluated, 18 (72%) had explicit GenAI editorial policies. All prohibited attributing authorship to artificial intelligence (AI) tools and emphasized human responsibility. Nineteen journals (76%) required disclosure of GenAI use, but only 14 (56%) specified disclosure location. Thirteen (52%) addressed AI-generated images. Journals permitting GenAI-assisted language editing had significantly higher H-indices (70.2 vs. 20.7; P = 0.0167). Scimago Journal Rank Q1/Q2 journals demonstrated more comprehensive policies than lower-tier journals (6.8 vs. 4.0 elements; P = 0.0094). US- and UK-based journals led in policy specificity. While GenAI policies are increasingly present in vascular surgery journals, inconsistencies persist. Standardized, enforceable editorial guidance is needed to ensure ethical and transparent integration of GenAI into scholarly publishing.

Romania’s membership in the European Union and NATO has increased the visibility of think tanks as contributors to the country’s diplomatic and economic policy. These institutions connect academic research, public dialogue, and government decision-making by offering expertise that helps shape national strategies. Yet, their real influence on policy outcomes remains insufficiently explored. This paper presents a focused analysis of five major Romanian think tanks: the European Institute of Romania, the Romanian Diplomatic Institute, the New Strategy Center, the Romanian Center for European Policies, and EUROPULS. The research examines their structures, publications, engagement methods, and connections with public institutions. While each focus on a specific set of policy areas such as European integration, national security, or governance reform, they often rely on similar tools. These include publishing policy documents, participating in consultations, and contributing to public or institutional debates. However, the level of their influence varies, often depending on external factors such as their funding sources, the strength of their institutional networks, and the transparency of their operations. By highlighting both their roles and limitations, the study offers insight into how think tanks contribute to the shaping of Romania’s policy agenda. It also opens space for further research into how knowledge-based institutions can support democratic governance and informed decision-making in transitional political contexts.

BackgroundAedes aegypti mosquitoes transmit multiple arboviruses, including dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever, resulting in a large global disease burden. Vector control remains the key strategy to prevent transmission due to the absence of widely available vaccines or treatments. Many studies evaluate control approaches, yet only a subset are published in peer-reviewed journals. One potential contributor to selective reporting, or publication bias, could be a conflict of interest (COI), defined as employment by a for-profit company conducting the trial, or a financial interest tied to the tool’s intellectual property.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a systematic literature review of Ae. aegypti control trials from 2010 to 2022 to test the hypothesis that published trials with author-declared COI report a higher average level of Ae. aegypti suppression than publications whose authors declare no COI. Inclusion criteria required entomological outcomes (adult abundance or immature indices) with baseline and post-intervention data for both treated and untreated areas. Studies limited to laboratory, semi-field, or virus-only outcomes were excluded. We identified 51 publications that met the inclusion criteria. The studies with declared COI reported a 56.7% reduction in Ae. aegypti population, significantly higher than the 34.5% reduction in studies declaring no COI. The 51 studies were published in 26 different journals and eight (30.7%) did not have standard publishing policies that include the reporting of authors’ COI statements in the published articles.Conclusions/significanceOur findings suggest that author-reported COI is associated with higher mosquito population suppression. This association may reflect the use of more effective interventions in COI-affiliated studies or publication bias. We also observed inconsistencies in COI policies and the display of COI statements across journals, underscoring the need for standardized and transparent reporting.

Rationale of Study – The study examines academic staff's attitudes towards institutional repository (IR) usage, identifies the purposes for its use, and explores the challenges academic staff face when using repositories, contributing to global understandings of IR adoption in diverse institutional contexts. Methodology – A descriptive survey research design was adopted, and total enumeration sampling was employed due to the small, manageable population size. Of the 322 questionnaires distributed, 291 were completed and usable, yielding a 90.3% response rate. Findings – The study revealed that the overall mean awareness level among academic staff of IRs was high at 2.95. It also showed that academic staff's average attitude towards IRs is positive, with a mean of 2.80, and that their purposes for using IRs are high. Challenges identified include low bandwidth, financial constraints, epileptic power supply, an absence of an IR policy that hinders content submission, unwillingness to deposit, fear of copyright infringement, fear of plagiarism, limited awareness of publisher policies regarding the deposit of published works in IRs, and insufficient training opportunities in research. Meanwhile, 287 (98.6%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement that IRs lack global accessibility Implications – This paper supports theories on open access and knowledge sharing, illustrating how cultural, institutional, and infrastructural contexts influence participation worldwide, and providing insights that can inform strategies to enhance IR engagement, mandate or encourage deposits, and address barriers in institutions globally, including those in resource-constrained settings like Delta State Polytechnic, Otefe-Oghara, Nigeria. Originality – The original research generated empirical data on academic staff awareness and attitude towards the use of IRs at Delta State Polytechnic, Otefe-Oghara, Nigeria, offering valuable lessons for broader international efforts to strengthen institutional repositories as key components of scholarly communication.

The implementation of the single salary policy by the central government constitutes a strategic initiative to reform the national remuneration system for civil servants. In addition to simplifying income components, this policy produces administrative, fiscal, and institutional consequences at the regional level. West Papua Province, with its distinctive geographical characteristics and fiscal capacity, faces particular challenges in adapting to this reform agenda. This study aims to analyze reforms in the income structure of civil servants following the implementation of the single salary policy within the West Papua Provincial Government in 2026. Using a qualitative research design, the study employs policy analysis methods through a comprehensive review of regulatory documents, in-depth interviews with key government officials, and observation of regional income management practices. The findings reveal that the single salary policy significantly alters the structure of additional income allowances and shapes civil servants’ perceptions of welfare, fairness, and income equity. Furthermore, effective implementation depends on institutional preparedness and fiscal adjustments to prevent disruptions in personnel management and bureaucratic performance. This study emphasizes the necessity of integrating local contextual factors into the execution of national policies, particularly within the broader framework of bureaucratic reform in regions granted special autonomy.

From ‘exceptionalism’ to authors’ rights: Fairer publishing policies for more impactful science

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into scholarly publishing constitutes a structural transformation of historical significance, fundamentally reshaping how knowledge is produced, evaluated, and disseminated. This study presents a systematic analysis of AI adoption within the global research ecosystem, focusing on the critical period from 2021 to late 2025. Using a secondary data analysis framework, the paper examines the dual role of generative AI and large language models (LLMs) as both enablers of unprecedented efficiency and sources of emerging epistemic risk. Drawing on bibliometric evidence, industry reports, and peer-reviewed literature, the analysis reveals a rapid escalation in AI use among researchers, reaching 58% globally in 2025 compared to 37% in 2024. While the literature consistently demonstrates that AI substantially accelerates scholarly workflows—most notably in grant writing, literature synthesis, and preliminary review—it also exposes systemic vulnerabilities, including citation hallucination, opacity in reasoning, and erosion of academic integrity. These risks are compounded by the potential amplification of epistemic injustice, as AI systems trained on dominant linguistic and cultural corpora may marginalize non-Western and non-native English scholarship. The study is guided by two objectives: (i) to evaluate the operational efficacy of AI in streamlining research workflows and (ii) to assess the ethical and institutional implications of emergent “posthuman” authorship. Findings indicate that while AI-assisted tools can reduce grant preparation time by more than 90%, they simultaneously generate non-verifiable citations at rates that threaten the cumulative reliability of the scholarly record. Comparative analysis of detection tools and publisher policies further demonstrates that existing governance mechanisms are fragmented, biased, and insufficient for AI-scale knowledge production. The paper argues that academia is entering a posthuman phase of authorship in which human–machine collaboration destabilizes conventional notions of originality, accountability, and intellectual ownership. Without robust governance frameworks and a redefinition of scholarly integrity, the scientific record risks contamination by machine-generated simulacra of knowledge, undermining trust in research as a public good.

The rapid integration of generative AI into scholarly writing has created an inconsistent policy landscape, challenging academic integrity in nursing education. This study analyzed nursing journals' publishing policies on AI-generated content (AIGC) to create an evidence base for educators. A cross-sectional analysis of nursing journals from the Scimago database was conducted. Author guidelines were systematically screened for AIGC policies, and data on prevalence, authorship, and disclosure were extracted. A majority (65.31%) of the 98 included nursing journals had AIGC policies. Broad agreement prohibits AI authorship (85.94%) and mandates human accountability (84.38%), with all requiring disclosure. However, guidance on AI-generated images was sparse (43.88%) and inconsistent. Inconsistent and incomplete AIGC policies create an ambiguous landscape for nursing students and faculty. These findings highlight a need for nursing education to proactively develop curricula, shape policies, and advocate for standardized guidelines to ensure the ethical use of generative AI and uphold scholarly integrity.