docs: reorganize and streamline media mentions (#1036)

Restructure mentions into institutional references and news to improve scanability and maintainability. Also add University of Pittsburgh and Library Learning Space mentions, and harmonize wording for a consistent professional tone. [AI-assisted]

Co-authored-by: florath-ai-assistant[bot] <Andreas.Florath@telekom.de>

Author: coding-ai-assistant[bot]

docs/media-mentions.md

@@ -1,37 +1,45 @@
 # Aletheia-Probe Media Mentions
 
-Last updated: **February 13, 2026**
+Last updated: **February 15, 2026**
 
 This document summarizes known media and institutional mentions of Aletheia-Probe from early February 2026. All links below are directly clickable.
 
-## Priority Mentions
+## Part 1 - Official Universities and Research Organizations Linking to Aletheia-Probe
 
-1. **Nature (Technology Feature, 2026-02-02, Matthew Hutson)**  
-   Link: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00223-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00223-6)  
-   Nature presents Aletheia-Probe as a practical “one-stop shop” for assessing journal and conference legitimacy by combining signals from multiple sources that may disagree when checked individually. The feature explains the tool’s origin (created by Andreas Florath while screening a large review corpus), its command-line workflow, and its explainable output labels (`LEGITIMATE`, `PREDATORY`, `INSUFFICIENT_DATA`) with confidence scores. It also includes balanced critique: open-source transparency is praised, but dependence on some blacklist-style inputs and command-line usability are identified as limitations for broader adoption.
-
-2. **University of Bonn Open Access Service Center (institutional guidance page; no single article timestamp)**  
+1. **University of Bonn Open Access Service Center (institutional guidance page; no single article timestamp)**  
    Link: [https://www.open-access.uni-bonn.de/en/basics/predatory-publishing](https://www.open-access.uni-bonn.de/en/basics/predatory-publishing)  
-   This is not a news article but a persistent guidance resource on predatory journals/conferences that explicitly includes Aletheia-Probe in its recommended toolset. The page places the tool alongside established checklists and directory-based validation practices, and documents expected usage/output categories (`LEGITIMATE`, `PREDATORY`, `INSUFFICIENT_DATA`) plus command-line invocation. This mention is important because it indicates institutional operationalization of the tool in publication-integrity advice.
+   This is a standing institutional guidance resource on predatory journals and conferences that includes Aletheia-Probe in its recommended toolset. The page places the tool alongside established checklists and directory-based validation practices, and documents the output categories (`LEGITIMATE`, `PREDATORY`, `INSUFFICIENT_DATA`) plus command-line usage. This mention indicates institutional use in publication-integrity guidance.
+
+2. **University of Pittsburgh Library System (LibGuide: "Evaluating Publication Venues")**  
+   Link: [https://pitt.libguides.com/academic-publishing/venue](https://pitt.libguides.com/academic-publishing/venue)  
+   This institutional guide includes Aletheia-Probe in its "Checklists and Tools" section alongside Think. Check. Submit., Be iNFORMEd, and MIAR. It describes Aletheia-Probe as an open-source, multi-source assessment tool and points readers to the README for usage details. This is a clear university-library reference for practical venue-evaluation workflows.
+
+3. **Dementia Researcher / NIHR (2026-02-03, Nature Careers repost/adaptation)**  
+   Link: [https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/is-this-journal-legitimate-this-tool-can-help-you-decide](https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/is-this-journal-legitimate-this-tool-can-help-you-decide)  
+   This page republishes/adapts the Nature Careers coverage for a research-community audience. It retains the main points on predatory-journal risk, multi-source evidence, and confidence-scored outputs, while repeating the usability caution around command-line workflows. This should be classified as secondary distribution rather than independent reporting.
 
-## Additional Verified Mentions
+## Part 2 - News
 
-3. **Phys.org (2026-02-03, Paul Arnold)**  
+1. **Nature (Technology Feature, 2026-02-02, Matthew Hutson)**  
+   Link: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00223-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00223-6)  
+   Nature presents Aletheia-Probe as a practical multi-source tool for assessing journal and conference legitimacy. The feature covers the project origin, command-line workflow, and explainable output labels (`LEGITIMATE`, `PREDATORY`, `INSUFFICIENT_DATA`) with confidence scores. It also provides balanced critique, noting both open-source transparency and adoption limits tied to blacklist dependencies and CLI usability.
+
+2. **Phys.org (2026-02-03, Paul Arnold)**  
    Link: [https://phys.org/news/2026-02-access-software-tool-fake-journals.html](https://phys.org/news/2026-02-access-software-tool-fake-journals.html)  
-   Phys.org frames predatory publishing as a fraud risk for both authors and readers, then positions Aletheia-Probe as an automated defense that scans curated lists and metadata ecosystems to flag warning patterns. The article emphasizes that the tool is not a black-box binary classifier: it returns reasoning plus a confidence score so humans can make the final decision. It also highlights current maturity limits (real-world validation and broader source expansion still needed) while pointing readers to the arXiv paper and GitHub project.
+   Phys.org frames predatory publishing as a fraud risk and positions Aletheia-Probe as an automated, evidence-based screening tool. The article emphasizes transparent reasoning and confidence scoring rather than black-box classification, and notes current maturity limits (validation scope and source expansion). It links to the arXiv paper and GitHub repository.
 
-4. **pressetext (pte20260205002, 2026-02-05 06:00, German)**  
+3. **pressetext (pte20260205002, 2026-02-05 06:00, German)**  
    Link: [https://www.pressetext.com/news/-aletheia-probe-findet-forschungs-fake-news.html](https://www.pressetext.com/news/-aletheia-probe-findet-forschungs-fake-news.html)  
-   pressetext describes Aletheia-Probe as software that uncovers pseudo-scientific publication venues by querying several major databases in parallel and correlating their findings. Its summary focuses on two technical ideas: digital-footprint checks (for example in OpenAlex/Crossref) and confidence-scored interpretation rather than yes/no verdicts. The piece explicitly notes that users should make the final judgment themselves, with the tool providing transparent supporting evidence for that decision.
+   pressetext describes Aletheia-Probe as software that identifies questionable publication venues through parallel checks across major databases. It highlights digital-footprint analysis (for example OpenAlex/Crossref) and confidence-scored interpretation instead of binary verdicts. The article explicitly states that final decisions remain with the user.
 
-5. **Dementia Researcher / NIHR (2026-02-03, Nature Careers repost/adaptation)**  
-   Link: [https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/is-this-journal-legitimate-this-tool-can-help-you-decide](https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/is-this-journal-legitimate-this-tool-can-help-you-decide)  
-   This page republishes/adapts the Nature Careers narrative for a research-community audience, preserving the core points on predatory-journal risk, cross-source evidence gathering, and transparent tool output. It repeats the practical workflow and confidence-labeled results, and also carries the same caution that command-line usage can limit accessibility. In documentation terms, this is best treated as secondary distribution that extends reach rather than an independent deep technical review.
-
-6. **Substack / AcademAI (2026-02-07, Santhosh Eapen)**  
+4. **Substack / AcademAI (2026-02-07, Santhosh Eapen)**  
    Link: [https://santhosheapen.substack.com/p/aletheia-probe?r=2ri45e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true](https://santhosheapen.substack.com/p/aletheia-probe?r=2ri45e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true)  
-   This long-form commentary focuses on the Indian academic context and argues that Aletheia-Probe addresses a real integrity gap but remains operationally inaccessible for many researchers because it requires command-line skills. The author highlights systemic pressures (publication metrics, funding/career incentives, APC exposure) and recommends interface-level improvements such as web/mobile front ends, stronger local-list integration, and institutional support workflows. The post is supportive of the core approach while emphasizing deployment and usability barriers outside technically strong environments.
+   This long-form commentary focuses on the Indian academic context. It argues that Aletheia-Probe addresses a real integrity gap, while noting adoption barriers for researchers without command-line experience. The post recommends interface and deployment improvements (for example web/mobile front ends and stronger institutional integration) while remaining supportive of the core approach.
+
+5. **Library Learning Space (Research Support, 2026-02-12)**  
+   Link: [https://librarylearningspace.com/open-source-tool-to-help-assess-predatory-journals-and-conferences/](https://librarylearningspace.com/open-source-tool-to-help-assess-predatory-journals-and-conferences/)  
+   This outlet lists Aletheia-Probe in its Research Support coverage and summarizes the same core narrative seen in early February reporting. It presents the tool as an open-source aid for evaluating predatory journals and conferences, with emphasis on practical researcher guidance. This should be classified as secondary distribution coverage rather than primary technical reporting.
 
-7. **WorldNews (WN) aggregator (posted 2026-02-03, source-attributed to Phys.org)**  
+6. **WorldNews (WN) aggregator (posted 2026-02-03, source-attributed to Phys.org)**  
    Link: [https://article.wn.com/view/2026/02/03/Openaccess_software_tool_helps_researchers_spot_fake_journal](https://article.wn.com/view/2026/02/03/Openaccess_software_tool_helps_researchers_spot_fake_journal)  
-   The WN entry is an aggregator-style snippet that references the Phys.org story and repeats its central message about explainable scoring for legitimacy checks. Its visible text is abbreviated (“read full story”), so its value is primarily distribution/visibility rather than new reporting or additional technical detail. For traceability, this should be classified as syndicated mention coverage.
+   This is an aggregator-style snippet attributed to the Phys.org story. It repeats the main message on explainable scoring for legitimacy checks, with limited visible text and no additional technical reporting. This should be classified as syndicated distribution coverage.