From Gutenberg to Open Science: An Unfulfilled Odyssey

Sharing Research Data: An Analysis of the Interest of Social Scientists in the Context of a Mexican University

Open Science and open research data have the potential to speed up the processes of science and to generate benefits to society. However, the openness of research data and science cannot be taken for granted since there is a trend toward the capitalization of knowledge. In addition, each area of knowledge differs in terms of the data used and the rules that govern each scientific community. The aim of this article is to analyze social researchers’ interest in sharing research data within the context of a Mexican university. Based on the constructivist grounded theory approach, 12 interviews were conducted with social scientists from a higher education institution in Mexico. From the analysis, four categories associated with the researchers’ attitudes of sharing their data emerged. The findings exhibit that researchers’ interest in sharing their scientific data is prone to (1) selectively sharing, (2) perpetuating the system, (3) protecting privacy and (4) considering resources. These results show that the scientists interviewed show an opposite inclination to Open Science, since they are not willing to share their data openly, including the fact that within the Mexican context, the practice of sharing data openly is not encouraged.

Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges

Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.

Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.

Predatory journal preference in the field of Orthopaedics and Traumatology in Turkey

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology and to investigate the relationship of these publications with the regulations of scientific fields made in recent years in Turkey.

Methods

The journals and publishers between the years 2000–2018 were screened and websites visited one by one on the basis of the orthopedic journals and publishers list determined as predators or possible predators. Orthopedic publications originated from Turkey was detected in these predatory journals. Article admissions, article processing charges, editorial and referee average response times were reviewed from the websites of journals. In addition, the effect of changing associate professorship application requirements and academic incentive regulation on the preference of predatory journals was examined.

Results

Between 2000 and 2018 years 1626 issues which can be reached in 282 journals were examined. 4795 articles were screened in 29 journals which have articles originated from Turkey. One hundred and six (2.21%) articles which originated from Turkey was reached in these publications. Average article processing charge was $865 ($ 0–1819). Fifty-nine of 106 (55%) articles originated from Turkey were found in only 4 journal. Journals which have articles originated from Turkey were not on the Web of Science list. The response time to the articles was between 2 and 6 weeks in these journals. After the change criteria in associate professorship in 2016, 3.32 fold increase in annual average number of publications originated from Turkey have been identified in predatory journals. After the change criteria in academic incentive regulation in 2015, 4.76 fold increase in annual average number of publications originated from Turkey have been identified in predatory journals.

Conclusion

The number of articles in predatory journals is increasing all over the world. This situation also valid in the field of Orthopaedics and Traumatology in Turkey. Authors should pay attention regarding predatory journals not only article processing charges but also very short evaluation period.

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

The issue of predatory journals has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade, as the open-access model of publishing has gained prominence. Although the open-access model is well intentioned to increase accessibility of biomedical research, it is vulnerable to exploitation by those looking to corrupt medical academia and circumvent ethics and research standards. Predatory journals will achieve publication by either soliciting unsuspecting researchers who have legitimate research but fall victim to these predators or researchers looking to quickly publish their research without a thorough review process. Some features of predatory journals are a quick non-peer-review process, falsely listing or exaggerating the credibility of editorial board members, and either lack of or falsification of institutional affiliations and database listings. These predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical research, as they will infect the available literature with unsubstantiated articles, and allow low-quality research. A number of steps can be taken to prevent the spread and increase awareness of predatory publishers, and these must be done to maintain the integrity of medical academia. Clin. Anat. 30:767-773, 2017. © 2017Wiley Periodicals, Inc.