Fake news, ¿amenaza u oportunidad para los profesionales de la información y la documentación?

This article presents a scoping review of the academic literature published between 2021 and 2024 on the intersection of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and disinformation. Drawing from 64 peer-reviewed studies, the review examines the current research landscape and identifies six key thematic areas: political disinformation and propaganda; scientific disinformation; fact-checking; journalism and the media; media literacy and education; and deepfakes. The findings reveal that generative AI plays a dual role: it enables the rapid creation and targeted dissemination of synthetic content but also offers new opportunities for detection, verification, and public education. Beyond summarizing research trends, this review highlights the broader societal and practical implications of generative AI in the context of information disorder. It outlines how AI tools are already reshaping journalism, challenging scientific communication, and transforming strategies for media literacy and fact-checking. The analysis also identifies key policy and governance challenges, particularly the need for coordinated responses from governments, platforms, educators, and civil society actors. By offering a structured overview of the field, the article enhances our understanding of how generative AI can both exacerbate and help mitigate disinformation, and proposes directions for research, regulation, and public engagement.

The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020–2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions.

Se analizan los principales elementos y características del Plan S, iniciativa de la cOAlition S, promovido desde Europa para acelerar el acceso abierto, al pedir a los investigadores que los artículos sufragados por un conjunto de agencias adheridas sean puestos a disposición inmediatamente una vez publicados, con una serie de requisitos a nivel de licencias. Dicho plan ha conllevado un encendido debate en el mundo académico entre defensores y detractores. A continuación, se sintetizan y categorizan los principales argumentos y puntos de vista que se han manifestado contrarios a la iniciativa. Finalmente, se apuntan los principales retos que el Plan S tendrá para cumplir con sus objetivos