Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Breast Imaging: A Scientometric Umbrella Review

Artificial intelligence (AI), a rousing advancement disrupting a wide spectrum of applications with remarkable betterment, has continued to gain momentum over the past decades. Within breast imaging, AI, especially machine learning and deep learning, honed with unlimited cross-data/case referencing, has found great utility encompassing four facets: screening and detection, diagnosis, disease monitoring, and data management as a whole. Over the years, breast cancer has been the apex of the cancer cumulative risk ranking for women across the six continents, existing in variegated forms and offering a complicated context in medical decisions. Realizing the ever-increasing demand for quality healthcare, contemporary AI has been envisioned to make great strides in clinical data management and perception, with the capability to detect indeterminate significance, predict prognostication, and correlate available data into a meaningful clinical endpoint. Here, the authors captured the review works over the past decades, focusing on AI in breast imaging, and systematized the included works into one usable document, which is termed an umbrella review. The present study aims to provide a panoramic view of how AI is poised to enhance breast imaging procedures. Evidence-based scientometric analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, resulting in 71 included review works. This study aims to synthesize, collate, and correlate the included review works, thereby identifying the patterns, trends, quality, and types of the included works, captured by the structured search strategy. The present study is intended to serve as a "one-stop center" synthesis and provide a holistic bird's eye view to readers, ranging from newcomers to existing researchers and relevant stakeholders, on the topic of interest.

Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals

The role of academic journals is significant in the reward system of science, which makes their rank important for the researcher's choice in deciding where to submit. The study asks how choices of immediate gold and hybrid open access are related to journal ranking and how the uptake of immediate open access is affected by transformative publish-and-read deals, pushed by recent science policy. Data consists of 186,621 articles published with a Norwegian affiliation in the period 2013–2021, all of which were published in journals ranked in a National specific ranking, on one of two levels according to their importance, prestige, and perceived quality within a discipline. The results are that researchers chose to have their articles published as hybrid two times as often in journals on the most prestigious level compared with journals on the normal level. The opposite effect was found with gold open access where publishing on the normal level was chosen three times more than on the high level. This can be explained by the absence of highly ranked gold open access journals in many disciplines. With the introduction of publish-and-read deals, hybrid open access has boosted and become a popular choice enabling the researcher to publish open access in legacy journals. The results confirm the position of journals in the reward system of science and should inform policymakers about the effects of transformative arrangements and their costs against the overall level of open access.

Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers

This study explores the publishing success of less experienced researchers including early career researchers in a selection of library and information science journals. The study includes all authors of articles and reviews published in 10 library and information science journals during a 20-year period (2001–2020). The prior publication of each author is determined at the time of publication in one of the ten journals. The analysis includes 14,612 publications and publication histories of 36,417 authors. The results show that there are considerable differences between journals, and that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time. Library automation journals publish considerably more publications by early career researchers than information science journals do. Publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience.

Mycopathologia 2020: Legacy and Change to Remain Relevant for Content, Creation, and Communication

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the publishing landscape. The 'pre-peer-review' publication model is likely to become common as a lag in publishing is not acceptable in a pandemic or other time! Mycopathologia is well placed to adopt such changes with its improved editorial processes, article formats, author engagements, and published articles' access and citation. Mycopathologia had an improved journal impact factor and article downloads in 2018-2019. A limited sampling suggested a slight decrease in the total submissions in 2019 (352 articles) compared to 2018 (371 articles). However, the acceptance rate improved to 30% in 2019 from 19% in 2018. Nearly half of all submissions in 2019 were rejected before peer-review or transferred to other Springer Nature journals. The published articles were contributed from 34 different countries, with authors from China, the USA, and Brazil among the top three contributors. An enhanced editorial oversight allowed peer-reviewers to focus on fewer articles that were well-matched to their expertise, which led to lower rejection rates post-peer-review. The introduction of MycopathologiaGENOME and MycopathologiaIMAGE article types received a good reception with notable downloads and citations.

Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions

The scholarly publication landscape continues to grow in complexity, presenting researchers with ever-increasing dilemmas regarding journal choice. However, research into the decision-making processes associated with journal choice is limited. This article contributes by reporting on an international survey of researchers in various disciplines and with varying levels of experience. The study examines the extent to which various journal characteristics affect journal selection, perceptions of the extent to which university and national research policies impact on their journal choice, and the influence of academics’ familiarity, confidence and objectives on journal choice. The most important factors influencing journal choice were as follows: reliability of reviewing, usefulness of reviewers’ feedback, the reputation of the journal and confidence that their article is in scope for the journal. Publishing productivity, publishing experience, researcher role and discipline had little impact on the ranking of journal choice factors, suggesting that the research community is homogeneous.

Analysis of Research Topics and Trends in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing to Improve Its International Influence

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze articles published in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing (JKAN) between 2010 and 2019, along with those published in three international nursing journals, to improve JKAN's international reputation.

METHODS

The overall characteristics of JKAN's published papers and keywords, study participants, types of nursing interventions and dependent variables, citations, and cited journals were analyzed. Additionally, the keywords and study designs, publication-related characteristics, journal impact factors (JIF), and Eigenfactor scores of International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS), International Nursing Review (INR), Nursing & Health Sciences (NHS), and JKAN were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Among the four journals, JKAN's score was the lowest in both the journal impact factor and Eigenfactor score. In particular, while the JIF of INR and NHS has been continuously increasing; JKAN's JIF has remained static for almost 10 years. The journals which had cited JKAN and those which JKAN had cited were mainly published in Korean.

CONCLUSION

JKAN still has a low IF and a low ranking among Social Citation Index (E) journals during the past 10 years, as compared to that of four international journals. To enhance JKAN's status as an international journal, it is necessary to consider publishing it in English and to continuously improve the conditions of other publications.