Abstract. This article revisits the early history of Soviet scientometrics, examining the role of Zinaida Mulchenko in writing Naukometriya – the foundational book in this field. While Vasily V. Nalim...

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

The group’s latest strategy emphasizes consultation, lacks spending pledges

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.

The science blog archive Rogue Scholar started the process of becoming a German non-profit organization in 2026. This blog post summarizes the reasoning and the main steps needed to achieve this. Two weeks ago, I published a self-assessment of how Rogue Scholar adheres to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). Major gaps were identified in the areas of _governance_ and _sustainability_. To address these gaps, a major step forward would be to start a non-profit membership organization. The need to take this step at some point was obvious to me since I launched Rogue Scholar in April 2023. With the basic service operating and on a good path forward with 50,000 science blog posts archived by the end of the year, the time has arrived to make this step. Starting a non-profit membership organization in Germany means starting a _Verein_ , or registered association. The steps involved to formally register the association are clearly laid out and mainly involve the following: * at least seven founding members, * drafting statutes (_Satzung_), * founding general assembly with members approving statutes and electing a founding board, * registration at a local court, * registration for charitable status with the tax authorities. It helps that I have worked for non-profit organizations most of my professional life. Not only public universities, but also a non-profit publisher (PLOS), and two membership organizations (ORCID and DataCite), with the latter also being a German Verein. Interestingly, Research Organization Registry (ROR), an initiative that I helped launch in early 2019, is not a membership organization. Running a non-profit organization in Germany requires more paperwork compared to, for example, Belgium or the Netherlands, mainly to obtain and keep charitable status. This means a good amount of work for the founding board, especially the president and treasurer. One important question is the rights and responsibilities of members. As individuals or groups of people, rather than formal organizations, run many science blogs, membership has to be open to all legal entities, individuals and organizations. Membership fees should differentiate between individuals and organizations, and include at least two tiers for small and large organizations, for example: * individual 25 EUR/year * small organization 250 EUR/year * supporting organization 2500 EUR/year Rogue Scholar is a Diamond Open Access infrastructure with no fees to readers or authors. This means that membership can't be a requirement for a science blog to be archived in Rogue Scholar, but rather that membership comes with other benefits. Members not only help support a unique open scholarly infrastructure but also have a say in the governance of the organization via the general assembly, participation in the board, and potentially working groups going forward. For Rogue Scholar to achieve sustainability, membership fees are an important element. Two other aspects are also important: * **Volunteer labor** , particularly in the areas of outreach, support, and software development, becomes easier once Rogue Scholar has formal members * **Grant funding** , which becomes easier once Rogue Scholar obtains charitable status Please use Slack, email, Mastodon, or Bluesky if you have any questions or comments regarding Rogue Scholar becoming a non-profit membership organization. Rogue Scholar is a scholarly infrastructure that is free for all authors and readers. You can support Rogue Scholar with a one-time or recurring donation, by becoming a sponsor, or soon by becoming a member. ## References 1. Fenner, M. (2025, October 20). Rogue Scholar follows the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). _Front Matter_. https://doi.org/10.53731/m65a8-6sm21 2. POSI Adopters. (2025). _The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure v2.0_. https://doi.org/10.14454/G8WV-VM65 3. Fenner, M. (2023, April 4). The Rogue Scholar is now open for business. _Front Matter_. https://doi.org/10.53731/z9v2s-bh329 4. California Digital Library, DataCite, Crossref, & Digital Science (United Kingdom). (2018). _The ROR of the crowd: Get involved!_. https://doi.org/10.71938/SNA1-ZC49

Great data visualization lives at the intersection of art and science. By bridging rigorous data analysis with creative design, data visualization has the power to make complex ideas easier to interpr...

Alex Csiszar (Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, USA)

Institutional repositories (IRs) are essential in advancing Open Access and facilitating the dissemination of scholarly work. This systematic review examines the challenges faced by IRs in areas such...

A new major version of ggplot2 has been released on CRAN. Find out what is new here.

Commercialisation has thwarted the promise of openness—it’s time for new priorities, says Samuel Moore

This month marks one year since the Dutch Research Council (NWO) introduced grant IDs—an important milestone in our journey toward more transparent and trackable research funding. We created over 1,60...

Bibliometrics, whether used for research or research evaluation, relies on large multidisciplinary databases of research outputs and citation indices. The Web of Science (WoS) was the main supporting infrastructure of the field for more than 30 years until several new competitors emerged. OpenAlex, a bibliographic database launched in 2022, has distinguished itself for its openness and extensive coverage. While OpenAlex may reduce or eliminate barriers to accessing bibliometric data, one of the concerns that hinders its broader adoption for research and research evaluation is the quality of its metadata. This study aims to assess metadata quality in OpenAlex and WoS, focusing on document type, publication year, language, and number of authors. By addressing discrepancies and misattributions in metadata, this research seeks to enhance awareness of data quality issues that could impact bibliometric research and evaluation outcomes.