Publications

Research visibility has become a critical issue for universities, yet the institutional conditions that shape it remain underexplored. While Current Research Information Systems (CRISs) provide essential infrastructure for managing publications and researcher profiles, their impact depends on broader governance and cultural factors. This study compares four universities—two in Peru, one in Chile, and one in Spain—that have adopted the Pure CRIS platform. Data were manually extracted from institutional portals and analyzed descriptively, using normalized indicators such as publications per researcher, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) alignment, and collaboration networks. Although based on a limited sample, the analysis highlights substantial contrasts: European institutions show consolidated integration of CRIS into national evaluation systems, while Latin American universities remain at earlier stages of adoption, with fragmented policies and limited international reach. The findings suggest that technological platforms alone are insufficient; institutional commitment, coherent policies, and academic cultures that value dissemination are decisive. These insights contribute a comparative framework to guide universities, particularly in Latin America, seeking to strengthen their global research visibility.

This study evaluates digital object identifier (DOI) hallucination in large language model (LLM)-generated scholarly citations, with a focus on systematic geographic disparities. To conduct this study, we systematically evaluated four LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3-haiku, Gemini-2.0-flash-lite, and DeepSeek V3) using standardized information behavior prompts across ten countries with diverse income levels. The models generated 3451 citations, which we validated using the CrossRef API. The results showed that DOI hallucination follows systematic patterns influenced by model choice, geographic context, and publication recency. Hallucination rates exceeded 80% in lower-income countries and increased sharply for publications from the 2020s across all regions. Fabricated citations—citations that appear structurally complete but contain invalid DOIs—were especially prevalent in countries such as India and Bangladesh. Model-specific factors showed the strongest association with hallucination, followed by income level and publication period. These findings raise concerns about the epistemic reliability of LLM-generated scholarly references and underscore the need for region-aware training, real-time DOI validation, and robust verification protocols in academic contexts.

Peer review fails when it is delivered without fairness, accountability, or respect. When unprofessional reviews are communicated without editorial intervention, they undermine trust, distort scientific dialogue, and disproportionately harm early-career and underrepresented researchers. This article combines a detailed case study with evidence from the literature to illustrate how reviewer misconduct can escalate into editorial failure, and why such outcomes are avoidable. Mechanisms already exist to prevent them, including pre-screening, structured review forms, training, appeals processes, and reviewer tracking, but require consistent application. The central problem is not the absence of guidance, but the lack of enforcement. Restoring credibility in peer review depends on editors treating oversight as a duty of stewardship, ensuring that critique remains rigorous, constructive, and respectful.