If you were leading a team of professional services staff at a university, what is the one thing you would want them to understand about artificial intelligence? Not the policies. Not the risks. Just one practical idea that would help them use AI more effectively in their everyday work. 🧵

Does your university advise staff to use Beall’s List? For many years, Beall’s List was the most widely known attempt to identify so-called “predatory” journals and publishers. For researchers trying to navigate the rapidly expanding world of academic publishing, it offered something very simple: 🧵

Are tools designed to bypass AI detection ethically acceptable in research and publishing? Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of the research and publishing process. Researchers now use AI tools to help with tasks such as: 🧵

Yesterday I published a newsletter examining why paper mills exist and why the discussion about them may sometimes be focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Much of the current response in scholarly publishing centres on detection. 🧵

What is one thing university leaders should stop doing immediately? Leadership in universities is difficult. Nobody would deny that. However, the sector is full of competing pressures. 🧵

Should journals respond to simple requests for information? Peer review takes time. We know that. We accept that. In fact, if a paper were accepted or rejected too quickly, many researchers would probably worry that the process had not been sufficiently thorough. 🧵

Who looks after the ethics of AI-assisted research in your institution? Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of the research process. Researchers now use AI to help with: ⚫️ Drafting manuscripts ⚫️ Summarising literature ⚫️ Analysing data ⚫️ Generating code ⚫️ Editing language

A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. But who is benefiting?

Many university leaders are quietly asking the same question right now. Not publicly. Not in strategy documents. … but in board meetings and leadership discussions. Given the current higher education environment, how do we ensure that our university remains sustainable? 🧵

University rankings are usually presented as measurement systems. They compare institutions, assess performance and provide a shorthand way of understanding the global higher education landscape. Governments refer to them. Students consult them. University leaders analyse them carefully. 🧵

Where do university leaders actually come from? In most sectors, leadership pipelines are explicit. Managers are trained. Leadership capability is assessed. Future leaders are identified and developed. Universities often work very differently. 🧵

Do senior leaders use social media strategically… or accidentally? Social media has become a normal part of professional life for many people. Researchers share papers. Students document their experiences. Institutions promote achievements and announcements. 🧵

How is artificial intelligence actually being used inside universities? Over the past two years, AI tools have become widely available to students, researchers and professional services staff. Many people now use AI in their everyday work. 🧵

Guest post: A call to end the ‘impact on conclusions’ test for retraction

I received this email inviting me to submit to the International Journal of Nursing and Health Care Research (ISSN 2688-9501). It contained several claims that caught my attention. ________________________________________ 🧵

LLM-hallucinated references should be easy to detect. So why aren't they? Large language models (LLMs) sometimes invent references. ⚫️ Papers that look plausible ⚫️ Authors that sound real ⚫️ Journals that (may) exist But the article itself does not. 🧵

Who are the real predators in academic publishing? The phrase predatory publishing is now widely used. It usually refers to journals that charge authors fees while providing little or no meaningful peer review. That is: ⚫️Weak editorial oversight. ⚫️Aggressive solicitation. ⚫️Poor standards. 🧵

Peer review may be entering the age of verification For decades, peer review has operated largely on trust. Editors trust reviewers to read papers carefully. Authors trust reviewers to evaluate work fairly. Publishers trust the community to follow agreed rules. 🧵

Has the first AI-written, AI-reviewed paper already been published without a human ever reading it? I recently saw a post by David Elliman on LinkedIn (see buff.ly/F6PPr7u) discussing the growing avalanche of research papers and the role that AI may now play in generating them. 🧵

Fresh AI data mining plan ‘could hand research to big tech’ - Research Professional News

What does “corresponding author” actually mean? In academic publishing, the corresponding author is usually the person who communicates with the journal during the submission and review process. 🧵

Yesterday I published a newsletter examining why paper mills exist and why the discussion about them may sometimes be focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Much of the current response in scholarly publishing centres on detection. 🧵

Do editors actually read manuscript cover letters? When you submit a manuscript, one of the standard requirements is a cover letter. Most journals ask for it. Most submission systems have a dedicated upload box for it. And most authors dutifully write one. 🧵

It would really help the community if we had access to when authors were added to a paper. At the moment "the system" relies on people like @Spottingthespot linking papers to authorship for sale adverts and then asking the question - hoping it will be answered. 🧵

How AI use in scholarly publishing threatens research integrity, lessens trust, and invites misinformation

The elephant in the room: Peer review Peer review is often described as the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. It is meant to ensure quality, protect standards, and strengthen research before it enters the scientific record. But there is an uncomfortable question that deserves more attention. 🧵

UK universities are arriving in India. Should they compete… or collaborate? Several UK universities are planning to establish campuses in India, some with advanced plans in place. 🧵

Rank these (but be honest) What do you find most frustrating about publishing your research? Academic publishing is full of trade-offs. Quality control. Visibility. Credibility. But it also comes with friction. Some of it is necessary. Some of it… feels less so. 🧵

Why don’t journalists circle back to cover retractions? A conversation with Malgorzata Iwaniec-Thompson retractionwatch.com/2026/03/27/j...

A journal might report a 12% acceptance rate. What exactly does that number mean? Acceptance rates are often used to signal selectivity. They influence where researchers submit their work. They shape perceptions of journal prestige. Yet the way these numbers are calculated is rarely discussed. 🧵

Do universities verify academic CVs… or assume they are accurate? Academic CVs sit at the centre of many important university decisions. Appointments. Promotions. Research leadership roles. Grant allocations. Prestige hires. 🧵

When metrics look extraordinary: the Google Scholar profile of Alireza Heidari Google Scholar profiles often provide a quick snapshot of a researcher’s academic influence.

Universities write strategies. But the systems inside the institution often determine whether those strategies succeed… or quietly fail. Most universities have strategic plans. 🧵

"Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?" Fascinating article - well worth taking a look at buff.ly/8WZY0gd

One journal once told me they would not consider my paper unless I converted it from LaTeX to Word. I did. The next day, they rejected it as out of scope. I still remember it, even though it happened about ten years ago. The paper had originally been submitted as a PDF.

Are universities building AI fluency… or just AI rules? Artificial intelligence is now part of everyday academic life. 🧵

As a researcher you MUST archive web pages You find a useful web page. You read it. You cite it. And then you move on. But what happens when that page changes… or disappears? Your reader is now looking at something different to what you cited. 🧵

The Camel’s Camel | "Today, I searched for some scientific papers containing “tortured phrases”. This term was first coined by Guillaume Cabanac" scienceintegritydigest.com/2026/03/12/t...

Quick question. How many hours did you spend in meetings this week? I calculated mine, from a typical week on my calendar. I was spending about two hours a day in meetings. That is roughly 10 hours a week. 🧵

You can cut away a great deal before a system visibly stops functioning. That does not mean the damage is minor. In university governance, this is often how decline begins. 🧵

The Academic Publishing System’s Most Pointless Bottleneck

When trust systems meet AI Many academic systems were built on trust. Peer review is one of them. Editors trust reviewers to read papers carefully. Authors trust reviewers to evaluate work fairly. Publishers trust the research community to follow agreed norms. 🧵

Who are we really keeping out of academic publishing? This door makes a statement. Heavy. Reinforced. Closed. It signals authority, control and exclusion. You do not enter unless allowed. ________________________________________ The story we tell ourselves 🧵

Ninety-seven ignored: A personal reflection on the hidden struggles of an academic editor ese.arphahub.com/article/1820...

Many people can see what is wrong in publishing. Far fewer are willing to say it. That is part of the problem. In research publishing, questionable behaviour is not always hidden. Often, it is visible to those working within the system. 🧵

I was interested to see that a UK Russell Group university has announced a 12-month trial using AI to prepare research grant proposals. ________________________________________ 🧵

Are AI-run special issues coming to academic publishing? I recently heard something interesting from a contact in academic publishing. Several reputable publishers are apparently exploring a new model for running special issues. The motivation is simple. 🧵

MDPI reports 12 per cent rise in submissions in 2025 annual results - Research Information buff.ly/IJct46G

The Great Citation Heist: How One Academic Hacked the System for 20,000 Fake Citations | measuresHE buff.ly/r33AIIN

The ethical risks of open-access agreements being used for authorship leverage buff.ly/BdJRtJd