MDPI, a leading open access (OA) publisher, has announced that 298 MDPI journals have been indexed in the latest edition of Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR), released yesterday, reflecting the continued growth and demand for open access publishing from the scholarly community worldwide.
Of these, 193 MDPI journals placed in the top 50% (first or second quartile) of their respective categories, with 61 journals receiving a top-quartile ranking, based on citation performance. Notably, Textiles, Mathematics, International Journal of Neonatal Screening, Smart Cities, Systems, and Pharmaceutics ranked in the top 10% in their categories, underscoring their growing influence and prestige within their academic fields.
Equally of note, 60 MDPI journals received a Journal Impact Factor for the first time, highlighting the momentum of open access publishing and MDPI’s ongoing efforts to broaden access to quality research. A total of 116 MDPI journals also received an increased Impact Factor. Moreover, 14 MDPI journals achieved an Impact Factor of 5.0 or higher, suggesting a high degree of influence and visibility.
Constanze Schelhorn, head of indexing at MDPI, said:
“The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) continues to be a widely used metric highlighting a journal’s recent citation activity. Inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection reflects a journal’s trustworthiness, meeting high editorial and ethical standards while demonstrating relevance within the respective research community.”
“JIFs should be interpreted alongside other indicators such as article-level citations and policy relevance, offering a more comprehensive view of research impact. For the sixty newly included journals, this milestone underscores their notable commitment to scholarly excellence and will improve the journal’s visibility and citation potential.”
As of the end of 2024, MDPI journals had received 18.4 million citations in Web of Science, making MDPI the most cited OA publisher. This is a clear reflection of the reach and visibility that Gold OA can achieve, as well as the increasing recognition of OA titles in major citation tracking databases.
MDPI’s growing presence is also reflected in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). When the ESCI launched in 2016, 24 MDPI journals were included, growing to over 200 journals by 2024. In the latest JCR, 103 MDPI journals in the ESCI received top-quartile (Q1 or Q2) rankings. These journals span several fast-growing fields, providing accredited platforms for sharing diverse, innovative research.
Wiley, today reported results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended April 30, 2025.
FISCAL 2025 HIGHLIGHTS
GAAP performance vs. prior year: Operating Income of $221 million vs. $52 million and Diluted Earnings Per Share (EPS) of $1.53 vs. ($3.65)
Exceeded Adjusted EPS guidance, delivered at top end of range for Adjusted EBITDA margin, and achieved Free Cash Flow outlook
Delivered Revenue and Adjusted EBITDA margin growth in both Research and Learning segments
Achieved Adjusted Operating Margin expansion of 300 basis points
Executed AI content licensing project this quarter with a third large tech company; $40 million in total AI licensing revenue realized in Fiscal 2025 compared to $23 million in Fiscal 2024
Drove a 34% increase in share repurchases and raised dividend for 31 st consecutive year
MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY
“We delivered another strong year of execution as we met or exceeded our financial commitments, drove profitable growth in our core, expanded margins and free cash flow, and extended further into the corporate market through AI licensing and partnership, science analytics, and knowledge services,” said Matthew Kissner, President and CEO. “Our multi-year journey of continuous improvement and innovation is yielding material gains in profitable revenue growth, margin expansion, and cash generation, and we remain steadfast and confident in our continued progress.”
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Please see accompanying financial tables for more detail.
Q4 reported revenue of $443 million vs. $468 million due to foregone revenue from divestitures; Adjusted Revenue (excluding divestitures) essentially even with prior year at constant currency as expected; Research Publishing +4% constant currency.
Q4 Operating Income of $76 million vs. $69 million; Adjusted Operating Income +15% with margin up 260bps. Diluted EPS of $1.25 vs. $0.46; Adjusted EPS +14% and Adjusted EBITDA essentially even.
Full year reported revenue of $1,678 million vs. $1,873 million due to foregone revenue from divested businesses; Adjusted Revenue (excluding divestitures) +3% at constant currency.
Full year Operating Income of $221 million vs. $52 million; Adjusted Operating Income +29% with margin up 300 basis points. Diluted EPS of $1.53 vs. ($3.65); Adjusted EPS +31% to $3.64, Adjusted EBITDA +8% to $398 million, and Cash from Operations of $203 million vs. $208 million; Free Cash Flow +10% to $126 million.
RESEARCH
Q4 Research revenue of $281 million was up 4% as reported and 3% at constant currency driven by solid growth in recurring revenue publishing models (calendar year 2025 journal renewals) and open access offsetting continued softness in backfiles, archives, and other ancillary products. Q4 Adjusted EBITDA of $97 million was up 4% as reported and at constant currency due to revenue growth. Adjusted EBITDA margin for the quarter rose modestly to 34.7%.
Full year Research revenue was up 3% as reported and at constant currency driven by growth in publishing and solutions. Research Adjusted EBITDA was up 4% or 5% at constant currency with margin up 30 basis points to 32.1%. Key performance indicators remained strong for the year, with submissions up 19% and output up 8%.
LEARNING
Q4 Learning revenue of $162 million was down 5% as reported and at constant currency as expected due to a $23 million AI licensing agreement in the prior year, partially offset by growth in Academic and additional AI licensing revenue this quarter. Academic growth excluding AI licensing was driven by strong demand for inclusive access and digital courseware. Professional performance excluding AI licensing was impacted by retail channel softness. Q4 Adjusted EBITDA of $70 million for the quarter was down 6% as reported and at constant currency due to lower revenues. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 43.0% compared to 43.5% in prior year period.
Full year Learning revenue of $585 million was up 2% as reported and at constant currency driven by growth in Academic and AI licensing. Learning Adjusted EBITDA of $219 million for the year was up 9% as reported and at constant currency. Adjusted EBITDA margin rose 250 basis points to 37.4%.
CORPORATE EXPENSES
“Corporate Expenses” are the portion of shared services costs not allocated to segments.
Q4 Corporate Expenses declined by 8% or 7% at constant currency due to lower depreciation and amortization, or 3% on an Adjusted EBITDA basis at constant currency due to restructuring savings.
Full year Corporate Expenses declined by 3% as reported and at constant currency due to lower depreciation and amortization, but rose 2% on an Adjusted EBITDA basis at constant currency due to enterprise modernization.
BALANCE SHEET, CASH FLOW, AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION
Net Debt-to-EBITDA Ratio was 1.8 compared to 1.7 in the year-ago period.
Net Cash provided by Operating Activities was $203 million compared to $208 million primarily due to spend on cloud-based solutions related to targeted enterprise modernization work. This spend is capitalized and amortized, like capex, but reported in this section of the cash flow statement. Otherwise, cash flow benefited from higher adjusted EBITDA and favorable working capital movements.
Free Cash Flow was up 10% to $126 million primarily driven by lower capex. Fiscal 2025 capex was $77 million vs. $93 million in prior year, however, capitalization between the two years were comparable when capex and cloud-based solution spend are combined.
Returns to Shareholders: Wiley allocated $137 million toward dividends and share repurchases, up from $122 million in the prior year. $60 million was allocated to share repurchases at an average cost basis of $44.16. This allocation is up from $45 million in the prior year period.
Divestiture Proceeds: After the year closed, Wiley received $120 million in cash proceeds related to the University Services divestiture, with the total outstanding note paid in full.
FISCAL 2026 OUTLOOK
Metric
Fiscal 2024 Results
Fiscal 2025 Results
Fiscal 2026 Outlook
Adj. Revenue
$1,617M
$1,660M
Low to mid-single digit growth
Adj. EBITDA Margin
22.8%
24%
25.5% to 26.5%
Adj. EPS
$2.78
$3.64
$3.90 to $4.35
Free Cash Flow
$114M
$126M
Approximately $200M
Note, growth outlook is comprehensive and includes adverse variances, including AI revenue in Fiscal 2025. Adjusted metrics exclude impact of divestitures, which were primarily completed in Fiscal 2024 with remainder completed in first half of Fiscal 2025. Approximately $17 million of divestiture-related revenue was recorded in Fiscal 2025.
Adjusted Revenue – growth expectation driven by demand to publish and Calendar Year 2025 journal renewal growth in Research Publishing, steady market trends in Academic, and continued demand for our content and data in AI development, partially offset by large AI agreements in prior year.
Adjusted EBITDA Margin – initial margin target was a range of 24 to 25% (January 2024). Wiley raised the target to 25%+ in March 2025, and this quarter to a range of 25.5% to 26.5%. Outlook is driven by anticipated cost savings, efficiency gains, and revenue growth.
The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) is pleased to announce the results of its recent Board elections for the term beginning July 1, 2025. Jonathan Clark, (Principal, Consultant and Managing Agent, The DOI Foundation) will transition to the role of Chair of the NISO Board, having served as Vice Chair for the past year. He is replaced as Vice Chair by Jill Morris of the Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration and Innovation (PALCI), who will assume the role of Chair for 2026–27 next July. Robert Wheeler (Director, Publishing Technology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers) rotates to the position of Past Chair, having served as NISO Chair for 2024–25.
NISO Voting Members have elected five new directors: Laura Cox (Senior Director, Publishing Industry Data, Copyright Clearance Center), Cynthia Hudson Vitale (Associate Dean for Technology Strategy & Digital Services, Johns Hopkins University), Alison Larkin (Associate Director, Peer Review Services, IEEE), Leslie Sharp (Dean of Libraries, Georgia Institute of Technology), and Monica Westin (Associate Director, Content and Discovery, Manchester Metropolitan University and Member, COUNTER Board of Directors).
The new directors will serve on the Board for a three-year term from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2028. Ryan Bernier, Karim Boughida, Angela Ecklund, Patricia Ginnis, and Wayne Strickland are rotating off the Board this year, with our thanks and appreciation for their service.
Full information about the current NISO Board can be found at https://www.niso.org/what-we-do/directory/board-members. This page will be updated on July 1 to reflect the results of this year’s election.
“I’m really looking forward to leading the NISO Board,” says Jonathan Clark. “This is a time of disruption and uncertainty for the information community, with no shortage of challenges—but also real opportunities. We have a chance to help the community harness the potential of the rapidly evolving technologies that are reshaping scholarly communication. It’s a privilege to take on this role and to work with such a thoughtful Board and the talented NISO team.”
Jill Morris added, “I’m honored to step into the role of Vice Chair and Chair-elect of the NISO Board of Directors. NISO’s work to develop and champion trusted standards is more important than ever, and it stands as a powerful example of the kind of cross-sector collaboration our community needs. From publishers and vendors to librarians and technologists, NISO brings together a wide range of voices. I’m excited to work closely with Jonathan, Todd, and the dedicated NISO team, and to help lead such a thoughtful and diverse group of partners on the Board in this new role.”
Todd Carpenter, NISO’s Executive Director, stated, “The NISO team extends a warm welcome to our five new board members as well as to Jonathan and Jill in their new roles. We are incredibly fortunate to have this exceptional group of leaders, with their wealth of experience and diversity of perspectives, guiding our organization. We’re excited to work alongside them to advance our mission to develop authoritative standards for the information community.”
Charlesworth, an Enago company, global leader in publishing solutions for the academic and scientific publishing industry, is pleased to announce a strategic partnership with Cassyni, the AI platform that turns academic seminars into citable, discoverable research outputs. Through this collaboration, Charlesworth will represent Cassyni in China, introducing the service to Chinese STM publishers, institutions, and researchers.
Cassyni’s video engine automates key steps from speaker onboarding to DOI assignment and multilingual captioning. By generating accurate Chinese and English subtitles, creating semantic chaptering and providing rich engagement analytics, the platform fuels what partners call the “Cassyni Effect”: amplifying global reach and driving measurable increases in downstream downloads and citations.
Under this partnership, Charlesworth will leverage its deep expertise and established network within China’s academic publishing landscape to promote Cassyni’s platform to STM publishers. This initiative aims to support Chinese researchers, institutions, and journals in adopting Cassyni’s tools to enhance the visibility and impact of their research seminars, fostering greater global collaboration and knowledge dissemination.
“We are delighted to partner with Cassyni to bring their transformative seminar platform to China’s research community,” said Michael Evans, CEO of Charlesworth. “Cassyni’s innovative approach aligns perfectly with our mission to support researchers and publishers in achieving excellence. We look forward to helping Chinese institutions and journals harness this technology to elevate their research output.”
Ben Kaube, Co-Founder of Cassyni, added, “China is home to some of the world’s fastest-growing research communities. Partnering with Charlesworth means we can amplify Chinese scholarship on a global stage by extending the benefits of Cassyni to publishers, universities and individual researchers.” How Cassyni boosts engagement for journals, universities and researchers
Easily host seminars to showcase papers or journals — whether live or pre-recorded.
Harness AI-generated multilingual subtitles and slide outlines to maximise global visibility and audience engagement.
Access detailed engagement analytics that link viewing hotspots with subsequent download and citation activity, giving editors, research offices and authors a clear view of topic demand.
Integrate seamlessly with popular research tools — including EndNote, Dimensions and more — ensuring seminars stay connected across the scholarly workflow.
Showcase departmental research to global audiences, attracting collaborators, students and funders worldwide.
Clarivate Plc (NYSE:CLVT), a leading global provider of transformative intelligence, today released the 2025 update to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This is the 50th anniversary of the industry-leading annual reports, which provide a comprehensive overview of the world’s leading and trusted academic journals, offering academic institutions, researchers, and publishers the ability to gauge journals’ trustworthiness and impact.
Only journals that have met the rigorous quality standards for inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection are featured within the Journal Citation Reports, which ensures users can confidently rely on the information and descriptive data provided. The annual reports provide a rich array of publisher–neutral data, metrics, and analysis to enhance user understanding of journal performance, including the widely recognized Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the Journal Citation Indicator.
Key highlights for the 2025 release:
The JCR includes data from a total of 22,249 journals across 254 categories
Over 6,200 of these were published via gold open access
Scholarly journals from 111 countries are recognized and receive a JIF, including 14,591 in the sciences and 7,559 in the social sciences, as well as 3,368 journals in the arts and humanities
618 journals receive a JIF for the first time
This year’s release excludes citations to and from retracted content when calculating the JIF numerator, ensuring that citations from retracted articles do not contribute to the numerical value of the JIF. However, retracted articles will still be included in the article count (JIF denominator), maintaining transparency and accountability. This policy affects 1% of journals.
Dr. Nandita Quaderi, Senior Vice President & Editor-in-Chief, Web of Science, Clarivate, said: “We are proud to remain true to our heritage while adapting to changes in the scholarly landscape. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the JCR, we are embracing our founder Eugene Garfield’s vision and looking to the future, reinforcing our dedication to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record and continuing our journey towards a more equitable, transparent and trustworthy scholarly ecosystem.”
Emmanuel Thiveaud, Senior Vice President, Research and Analytics, Academia & Government at Clarivate said: “We are excited to present the 2025 edition of the Journal Citation Reports, which continues to serve as a vital tool for the global research community. These valuable data and insights empower researchers and institutions to make informed decisions, fostering the advancement of knowledge and innovation.”
U.S. News & World Report, the global authority in education rankings and consumer advice, today published the 2025-2026 Best Global Universities rankings, which evaluate more than 2,250 schools on academic research and reputation.
The latest edition includes universities from more than 100 countries. The following countries have the most schools in the overall rankings:
China: 397
United States: 280
India: 118
Japan: 104
United Kingdom: 93
“The Best Global Universities rankings provide valuable benchmarks for students considering international study options or seeking institutions with a strong global research impact,” said LaMont Jones, Ed.D., managing editor for Education at U.S. News. “The rankings – one of many tools that U.S. News offers to assist with college decision-making – help students identify universities with worldwide recognition and cross-border academic excellence that can serve as a launching pad for their careers.”
Of the 51 subject rankings, eight will have more schools ranked this year, including: agricultural sciences; artificial intelligence; computer science; electrical and electronic engineering; engineering; gastroenterology and hepatology; plant and animal science and polymer science.
Powered by data and metrics from the Web of Science Core Collection and InCites Benchmarking & Analytics provided by Clarivate, a leading global provider of transformative intelligence, the Best Global Universities methodology weighs factors that measure a university’s global and regional research reputation and academic research performance.
For the overall ranking, this includes bibliometric indicators such as publications, citations and international collaboration. Each of the 51 subject rankings has its own weighting based on academic research performance in that specific area.
2025-2026 U.S. News & World Report Best Global Universities
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (U.S.)
Stanford University (U.S.)
University of Oxford (U.K.)
University of Cambridge (U.K.)
University of California Berkeley (U.S.)
University College London (U.K.)
University of Washington Seattle (U.S.)
Yale University (U.S.)
Columbia University (U.S.)
Africa – Top 3
University of Cape Town (South Africa)
Cairo University (Egypt)
University of Witwatersrand (South Africa)
Asia – Top 3
Tsinghua University (China)
National University of Singapore (Singapore)
Peking University (China)
Australia/New Zealand – Top 3
University of Sydney (Australia)
University of Melbourne (Australia)
University of New South Wales Sydney (Australia)
Europe – Top 3
University of Oxford (U.K.)
University of Cambridge (U.K.)
University College London (U.K.)
Latin America – Top 3
Universidade de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Brazil)
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (Chile)
The Best Global Universities rankings serve the broader U.S. News mission of providing trusted information and rankings – such as Best High Schools, Best Colleges and Best Online Programs – to empower all students in making informed choices about their education.
For more information on the Best Global Universities, visit X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Facebook and Instagram using #BestGlobal.
Joint study by Taylor & Francis and National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is published in the Journal of Data and Information Science
A new survey has revealed a widespread lack of clarity among researchers in China regarding ethical publishing practices, particularly when third-party manuscript services are involved. Analyzing the results of the survey, the authors of a study published in the Journal of Data and Information Science highlight the urgent need for all researchers to receive comprehensive and fit-for-purpose ethics education.
Conducted as part of a pioneering collaboration between international publisher Taylor & Francis and the National Science Library at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the survey of 1,777 students, researchers and librarians, demonstrates high levels of uncertainty about research and publishing ethics.
Understanding the responsibilities that come with article authorship is an area of confusion for 35.9% of survey respondents, with masters students reporting the highest levels of confusion. In addition, a notable proportion report having engaged in practices that constitute ‘gift authorship’; that is adding an author to a paper, or agreeing to be named as an author, when proper authorship criteria are not met.
The study also explores researchers’ perceptions of the services offered by third parties to support publication in international journals. While 31% of respondents report using third-party services, there is limited ability to recognize some of the unethical options offered. Most respondents correctly recognized services such as language editing, translation and formatting to be acceptable. However, a concerning number of respondents also consider activities typically carried out by paper mills, such as writing parts of a paper or adding authors and citations of the agent’s own choosing, to be acceptable.
The authors of the study conclude that there needs to be timely, accessible, fit-for-purpose training in research integrity and publishing ethics for researchers at all levels. This should include undergraduates and those at institutions who are responsible for upholding overall integrity standards. Core topics such as authorship responsibilities and working with ethical third-party manuscript services must be included in mandatory training. Only 55.4% of the survey respondents said they currently had any access to training, and an even smaller proportion to formal training.
The quality of current training is also called into question by the report. While researchers with formal training display more awareness and concern about ethical issues, many are still unable to confidently identify questionable practices, particularly around authorship.
The survey was developed by the Joint Lab on Research Integrity, a project supported by Taylor & Francis and the National Science Library at CAS. Established in December 2023, the Lab aims to better understand and address research ethics challenges in China by combining publisher expertise with direct research institution experience and insights.
Dr Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics & Integrity at Taylor & Francis, said: “The findings of our survey highlight the urgent need for training for students and researchers at all levels in China, a finding which we believe to be applicable to many students and researchers across the world. Until then, the knowledge gaps we’ve discovered leave researchers vulnerable to exploitation by unethical organizations, such as paper mills, and many may unknowingly engage in misconduct.”
“It is no wonder that 80% of those who responded to our survey are currently concerned about the impact of research integrity issues on the trustworthiness of research publications,” Alam added. “Partnerships between publishers and research institutions will be key to tackling global research integrity challenges, including the development and implementation of comprehensive training in research integrity and publishing ethics. A key motivation for establishing our collaboration with the National Science Library at CAS was to explore critical issues and we believe these results from our Joint Lab show the benefits of working together in this way.”
Dr Zhesi Shen, Deputy Director of the Department for Scientometrics and Research Evaluation at the National Science Library, CAS, said: “Research institutions and libraries play a vital role in educating the next generation of researchers about academic integrity standards and their implementation. Through close collaboration with publishers, these organizations can leverage their complementary strengths to develop and deliver systematic training programs tailored to local needs, while collectively addressing global research integrity challenges”
In a landmark collaboration that underscores India’s growing emphasis on AI-driven research excellence, Cactus Communications (CACTUS), a leading technology company specializing in AI-powered solutions and expert services for the scholarly publishing ecosystem, has partnered with the National Institute of Technology Calicut (NIT Calicut) to provide institution-wide access to its advanced AI research tools via the AI toolkit, Editage Plus.
This collaboration will enable NIT Calicut’s students, faculty, and researchers to leverage AI effectively to enhance research discovery, improve writing quality, and streamline scholarly publishing. By integrating these tools into its academic ecosystem, NIT Calicut joins a growing movement of Indian institutions that are embracing AI to accelerate research productivity and improve global impact.
With access to CACTUS’s AI suite, academics at NIT Calicut will now have an advanced toolkit to enhance efficiency at every research stage:
Paperpal: The all-in-one academic writing and research assistant trusted by 2M+ academics.
R Discovery: The top-rated literature search and research reading platform with 3M+ users.
Mind the Graph: The accurate scientific illustration tool trusted by 100+ leading institutions.
Akhilesh Ayer, CEO, Cactus Communications, emphasized the significance of this partnership:“We are witnessing an increased adoption of AI tools among top academic institutions globally, and our partnership with NIT Calicut reflects this trend. We have an unwavering commitment towards helping researchers reach their highest potential by empowering them with advanced technology that simplifies, enhances and accelerates their research journey.”
Echoing this sentiment, Prof. Prasad Krishna, Director, NIT Calicut remarked, “NIT Calicut has always been at the forefront of technological advancements. By incorporating the CACTUS’s Editage Plus toolkit into our academic framework, we aim to equip our academics with cutting-edge AI research tools that will enhance their scholarly contributions and global impact.”
Nishchay Shah, Group CTO and EVP, Products & AI, Cactus Communications, highlighted CACTUS’s broader vision: “This collaboration with NIT Calicut underscores our mission to create AI solutions that directly address the unique challenges faced by researchers and institutions. By providing access to trusted AI-driven tools, we are enabling academics to focus on what truly matters—innovative and impactful research.”
Focused on innovation and excellence, CACTUS remains dedicated to empowering researchers by working closely with leading universities across the world, helping them transition to smarter, AI-enabled academic workflows. As Indian research institutions continue to evolve, collaborations like this one between CACTUS and NIT Calicut pave the way for a future where technology and academia work hand in hand to drive global research impact.
Cadmore Media is pleased to announce that the publishing groups at the American Medical Association (AMA), JAMA NetworkTM and the AMA Ed HubTM, have selected its platform as the solution for video hosting and streaming.
This collaboration marks a major advancement in the AMA’s ability to deliver live and on-demand video across its publishing and educational platforms. With the full migration of JAMA Network and AMA Ed Hub’s video archive to Cadmore, both journal and educational content can now livestream an event and automatically keep the same video on demand for future consumption without requiring re-publication, providing a seamless, multimedia-rich experience for users.
At the core of the solution is a configurable backend workflow developed by product management teams at the AMA and Cadmore. This toolkit allows AMA and JAMA teams to publish video across multiple websites simultaneously—supporting both real-time and on-demand content—with automatic XML-based archiving to ensure long-term access and compliance with scholarly publishing standards.
The implementation integrates with the AMA’s existing content systems, including its front-end websites, and supports consistent branding, accessibility and metadata compliance.
Key features of this solution include:
Customized video player design aligned with the network’s brand and publishing standards, including automatic transcription, chaptering, sharing, chat moderation, and more to support the dissemination of scholarly content
Embedded video within JAMA Network articles and the AMA Ed Hub
A centralized, scalable workflow for live streaming and multi-site publishing
Integration with the JAMA Network’s content repository and delivery website
XML-based archiving for long-term discoverability and compliance
“Our work with Cadmore Media gives us turnkey control over live and on-demand video publishing,” said Paul Gee, VP of Digital Product Management and Development at the JAMA Network. “The streamlined workflow means we can deliver content wherever it’s needed, quickly and reliably, while also meeting our metadata and archiving needs.”
Violaine Iglesias, CEO and Co-Founder of Cadmore Media, added: “Partnering with a network as respected as JAMA reflects our commitment to helping scholarly and professional publishers bring video to the forefront of communication. It’s an honor to support the JAMA Network and the AMA EdHub with tools that make high-impact multimedia publishing simple and scalable.”
IOP Publishing (IOPP) is advancing open science and research impact by assigning Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to supplementary data files submitted alongside research papers. This initiative will make supplementary materials more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reproducible (FAIR), ensuring that authors receive greater recognition for their contributions beyond the primary research article.
A 2020 study demonstrated that articles with linked data receive a citation advantage, showing the value of this initiative. Supplementary files are often not easily discoverable or citable, which limits their impact.
Benefits for authors and researchers:
• Increased recognition and credit: Supplementary files will become formally citable, allowing authors to gain recognition for a broader range of research outputs.
• Enhanced discoverability: Data will be prominently linked on article pages, have its own dedicated ‘article’ pages on IOPscience, and be easily found through search engines.
• Support for funder open science policies: Authors will be better supported to meet some funders’ requirements to publicly share data associated with publicly funded research.
“Assigning DOIs to supplementary data is another step for IOPP toward making research more transparent and interconnected. It will help authors get the credit they deserve for more aspects of their work while making it easier for them to find and access relevant data. This initiative advances our journey toward a more FAIR research ecosystem and strengthens our commitment to open science, aligning with the global shift toward open data and scientific reproducibility,” says Daniel Keirs, Head of Journal Strategy and Performance at IOP Publishing.
IOPP’s decision to assign DOIs to supplementary research data was taken in response to feedback from the research community. A survey of researchers publishing with IOPP found that they see improving links between articles and relevant data as one of their highest priorities for publishers. Researchers also expressed their support for assigning persistent identifiers to supplementary data after it was trialled on selected journals.
An opportunity not to be missed! MDPI Books warmly invites all Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities (SSAH) researchers to submit a proposal to its inaugural book competition. The winning entries will be published free of charge on the MDPI Books platform. The selected authors will be able to showcase their expertise to a global audience, contributing to broader conversations on the role of SSAH in addressing key global challenges.
Entries will be judged by subject experts from MDPI Books. The judges are looking for entries that make an important contribution to knowledge and demonstrate the following:
An original contribution to the field;
A clear, well-structured argument;
Methodological soundness;
Relevance to current societal or academic debates and clear engagement with the state of the art;
Interdisciplinary potential.
Selected proposals will be invited to proceed to the next stage, which includes peer review in accordance with MDPI Books’ editorial standards.
Submissions are now open, closing on 31 August 2025.
“Researchers in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities (SSAH) make substantial contributions to public discourse and explore topics of broad public interest,” says Laura Wagner, head of books division at MDPI. “However, they often work within formats such as books and may have limited financial resources for open access publishing. At MDPI, we recognize both the value of their work and the challenges they face and we are committed to supporting greater accessibility and impact in these fields. The competition will broaden accessibility and impact in these fields of research by providing the opportunity to publish in open access at no cost to the authors, helping their work reach wider audiences.”
Eligibility
The competition is open to researchers working within the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities.
Proposals can be submitted by an individual or predefined team of authors.
Both monographs and edited volumes with a clear, coherent concept are eligible.
Proposed books should aim for a length of between 30,000 and 90,000 words.
All proposals must be original, unpublished, and intended for open access publication under a CC BY license with MDPI Books.
There are no restrictions based on career stage, geographic location, or institutional affiliation.
Submitting a Proposal
Entries can be made by completing an online application form, following the Guidelines for Manuscript Submission. All proposals must clearly indicate they are being submitted for the ‘Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities Book Competition’. Book publication is contingent on successful peer review and final approval processes. Authors of non-selected proposals will be contacted to explore alternative funding options or publication pathways with MDPI Books.
And Why Are We Insisting on Treating Them as Such?
For an industry that prides itself on progress, scientific publishing has a strange habit of rewarding conformity.
Every year, over three million scientific papers are published—a figure that doubles roughly every nine years. This massive output rests on the assumption that each publication adds a measurable contribution to the world’s knowledge base. But in practice, the academic system treats nearly all papers the same, relying on blunt proxies like citation counts, journal prestige, and impact factors to infer value.
These metrics reward safe, incremental research. Paradigm-challenging work, which by nature resists easy categorization or immediate validation, often lingers in obscurity. Many of the most important ideas in science were first ignored, misunderstood, or marginalized—and the current system does little to surface such work earlier.
That gap is what a new platform called Preprint Watch is trying to address. Instead of using citations as a proxy for importance, Preprint Watch classifies scientific papers based on their epistemic role—where they fall in the broader arc of scientific development. The tool doesn’t care how many people are reading a paper. It’s looking for signs that a preprint may indicate the early stages of a conceptual shift.
At the heart of the platform is a deep-reasoning agent called iKuhn, named after philosopher Thomas Kuhn, whose 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions outlined how science progresses through periodic upheavals rather than smooth accumulation. Preprint Watch applies this model on a set of semantic ontologies that classify preprints according to where they contribute to the so-called Kuhnian cycle:
Normal Science (refinement within a dominant model)
Model Drift (early signs of theoretical stress)
Model Crisis (systematic contradictions)
Model Revolution (emergence of alternative frameworks)
Paradigm Shift (replacement of the reigning model)
These classifications are assigned algorithmically by analysing the full text of preprints from sources like arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv. The result is a signal that is fundamentally distinct from bibliometric signals like citation count, views, or downloads. This signal tracks the progress of science across disciplines, something that researchers never thought possible.
For now, the platform delivers these signals via a public reporting feed and monthly digest. But the broader goal is to offer decision-makers—funders, publishers, R&D managers—an early detection and reconnaissance system for scientific research and discovery. “Even a 0.1% failure to detect disruptive research equates to billions of dollars in misallocated funding,” says co-founder Dr. Khalid Saqr. “This isn’t just about science—it’s about capital efficiency.”
This May, Saqr, engineering simulation expert and founder of KNOWDYN, launched Preprint Watch with Dr. Gareth Dyke, a renowned palaeontologist and former publishing executive with over 300 academic papers to his name. Together, they built the platform as a response to the limitations they saw in both academic gatekeeping and automated research tools. Their aim is to offer a new layer of epistemic inquiry to evaluate scholarly communication focused on epistemic contribution and position in the progress of science.
One of the most compelling aspects of the project is how little it asks of the user. It doesn’t require researchers to change how they write, publish, or tag their work. Instead, it reinterprets the research using a well-established philosophical model, translated into a computational framework.
In 2026, the team plans to introduce the Thomas Kuhn Prize, an annual award for the most disruptive preprint surfaced by the system. Unlike traditional prizes, this won’t be based on votes or nominations: The goal is to reward papers that challenge the foundations of their field—particularly those coming from outside elite institutions.
Though still early in its lifecycle, Preprint Watch is attracting interest among researchers sceptical of current incentives. It accepts preprint submissions freely from the scientific community, while the system is continuously monitored for signal anomalies. But the broader idea—that epistemic contribution deserves its own measurement standard—is gaining traction. After the pandemic, preprints are increasingly becoming vital social contracts that researchers, funders, and policymakers rely on to act without having to wait the peer review stamp from slow journals and inefficient society committees.
Critics may question whether a machine can accurately apply Thomas Kuhn reasoning and classify scholarly communications, or whether any system can reliably detect innovation in real time. But the platform’s creators are quick to clarify that they’re not claiming to predict Nobel prizes. “We’re not scoring papers,” Dyke explains. “We’re contextualizing them—mapping their relationship to the conceptual structures they affirm, extend, confront, or destabilize.”
The reality is: What emerges from Preprint Watch is not a ranking rubric as it may seem, but an entirely new type of content. The classification reports are well structured, explainable, and inspects preprints with a critical lens that provide immediate call to action for the stakeholders of science. It may also offer a supplementary decision-support feed to improve editorial judgment, reduce funding waste, and to make discovery pipelines more responsive to underlying shifts in scientific knowledge.
Of course, this kind of signal intelligence isn’t infallible. But that’s beside the point. What matters is that Preprint Watch is trying to measure something most platforms ignore: the trajectory of ideas, not just their afterglow.
If it works, it could help fix one of the most persisting inefficiencies in science. If it doesn’t, it still asks a question worth repeating: Are all papers created equal? Because the future of scientific progress may depend on how we choose to answer it.
