Quantifying the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times

Bibliometric Indices As Indicators of Research Output: Analyzing Anesthesiologists as a Paradigm for Surgical Disciplines

Anesthesiology is one of the increasingly competitive surgical specialties with a growing emphasis on scholarly activity. A metric of productivity and citation influence, the Hirsch index (h-index), can help identify mentors capable of guiding postgraduate trainees toward successful academic achievements. This study sought to determine associations between h-indices or m-quotients and manuscript publication in anesthesiology. Using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) website, accepted abstracts from the ASA Annual Meetings from 2019 to 2021 were screened (n=2146). The first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) h-indices, as well as the first author (FAMq) and senior author (SAMq) m-quotients, were collected for each abstract using the Scopus database. Whether an accepted abstract was subsequently published as a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal was also noted, along with the number of days between ASA presentation and publication date. Linear and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. In total, 348 (34.4%) of the 1012 eligible abstracts were published as manuscripts. Mean FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq, were significantly higher for accepted ASA abstracts that were later published in peer-reviewed journals compared to accepted abstracts that were not published (p<0.001). FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, and SAMq had significant positive associations with odds of publication (p=0.002; p<0.001; p=0.006; p<0.001, respectively). There was no statistical significance between FAHi, SAHi, FAMq, or SAMq and the number of days between ASA presentation and publication. Our study uniquely demonstrates the positive, direct association between h-indices and m-quotients with the probability of publication in anesthesiology. We propose that bibliometric indices are adapted to provide a refined perspective of a physician-scientist's capabilities. Postgraduate trainees can use these indices to discern research mentors primed to foster academic excellence.

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Citations driven by social connections? A multi-layer representation of coauthorship networks

To what extent is the citation rate of new papers influenced by the past social relations of their authors? To answer this question, we present a data-driven analysis of nine different physics journals. Our analysis is based on a two-layer network representation constructed from two large-scale data sets, INSPIREHEP and APS. The social layer contains authors as nodes and coauthorship relations as links. This allows us to quantify the social relations of each author, prior to the publication of a new paper. The publication layer contains papers as nodes and citations between papers as links. This layer allows us to quantify scientific attention as measured by the change of the citation rate over time. We particularly study how this change correlates with the social relations of their authors, prior to publication. We find that on average the maximum value of the citation rate is reached sooner for authors who have either published more papers or who have had more coauthors in previous papers. We also find that for these authors the decay in the citation rate is faster, meaning that their papers are forgotten sooner.

The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

Analysis of the original influencing factors and secondary influencing factors of academic papers

Purpose

The influencing factors of academic papers have always been the focus of attention in the field of Scientometrics. Exploring the influencing factors of altmetrics indicators and traditional literature indicators on academic papers is beneficial to better explore the potential significance and value of academic papers in the evaluation of scientific research. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on the latest JCR citation report, this paper selects 22 academic journals in the JIF Quartile Q1 journal of Information Science and Library Science, and then obtains the evaluation data of these journal papers from WOS database and Altmetric.com. This paper uses literature measurement, correlation analysis and regression analysis to explore the influencing factors of the paper.

Findings

The results show that the original influencing factors of academic papers have a significant impact on secondary influencing factors. What is more obvious is that the number of references (nr) presents a significant positive correlation with the total number of times (Z9), the number of uses (U1) and (U2).

Originality/value

This paper combines traditional literature indicators with Altmetrics indicators to study the influencing factors through primary influencing factors and secondary influencing factors. Through research, it denies the phenomenon that academic circles have published academic papers in the world in recent years to overemphasize certain factors to improve the influence of the paper.

Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers

We examined the long-term impact of coauthorship with established, highly-cited scientists on the careers of junior researchers in four scientific disciplines. Here, using matched pair analysis, we find that junior researchers who coauthor work with top scientists enjoy a persistent competitive advantage throughout the rest of their careers, compared to peers with similar early career profiles but without top coauthors. Such early coauthorship predicts a higher probability of repeatedly coauthoring work with top-cited scientists, and, ultimately, a higher probability of becoming one. Junior researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions show the most benefits from coauthorship with a top scientist. As a consequence, we argue that such institutions may hold vast amounts of untapped potential, which may be realised by improving access to top scientists.

By examining publication records of scientists from four disciplines, the authors show that coauthoring a paper with a top-cited scientist early in one's career predicts lasting increases in career success, especially for researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this confidentiality. If such confidentiality is breached by unethical reviewers who might steal or plagiarize the authors' ideas, researchers will lose trust in peer review and may resist submitting their findings to that journal. Science loses as a result, scientific and medical advances slow down, knowledge may become scarce, and it is unlikely that increasing bias in the literature will be detected or eliminated. In such a climate, society will ultimately be deprived from scientific and medical advances. Despite a rise in documented cases of abused peer review, there is still a relative lack of qualitative and quantitative studies on reviewer-related misconduct, most likely because evidence is difficult to come by. Our paper presents an assessment of editors' and reviewers' responsibilities in preserving the confidentiality of manuscripts during the peer review process, in response to a 2016 case of intellectual property theft by a reviewer. Our main objectives are to propose additional measures that would offer protection of authors' intellectual ideas from predatory reviewers, and increase researchers' awareness of the responsible reviewing of journal articles and reporting of biomedical research.

Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment

Editors of scientific journals meet increasing challenges to find peer reviewers. Rewarding reviewers has been proposed as a solution to incentives peer review, and journals have already started to offer different kinds of rewards, particularly non-monetary ones. However, research so far has mainly explored the efficacy of monetary rewards, while research on non-monetary rewards is barely absent. The goal of this article is to fill this gap by exploring whether and under what conditions a rather common non-monetary reward employed by journals, i.e., to recognize reviewers work by publishing their names on a yearly issue, is effective in increasing the willingness of scientists to become peer reviewers. We test the efficacy of three different reward settings identified in the literature: (1) engagement contingent, (2) task-completion contingent, and (3) performance contingent, through a natural experiment involving 1865 scientists in faculties of business and economics of Romanian universities. We explore whether reward efficacy varies across scientists depending on their gender, academic rank, research productivity, and type of institution to which they are affiliated. The results show that the performance contingency strongly reduces the number of respondents willing to become reviewers (− 60 % compared to a no-reward setting), particularly males and research productive scientists. Scientists affiliated with private universities are strongly discouraged by the reward. In sum, the results suggest that non-monetary rewards are not necessarily effective, as in some cases they may actually discourage the most intrinsically motivated and competent reviewers.

Exploration of editorial board composition, Citescore and percentiles of Hindawi journals indexed in Scopus

The statistical analysis of editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile of 180 Hindawi journals currently indexed in Scopus are presented in this data article. The three indicators (editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile) can be helpful for researchers to make informed decision about the impact of Hindawi journals. The last two indicators are components of Scopus Citescore metrics.

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors' good judgment and the publisher's procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.

The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures

This paper looks at peer review as a cooperation dilemma through a game-theory framework. We built an agent-based model to estimate how much the quality of peer review is influenced by different resource allocation strategies followed by scientists dealing with multiple tasks, i.e., publishing and reviewing. We assumed that scientists were sensitive to acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts and the fairness of peer review to which they were exposed before reviewing. We also assumed that they could be realistic or excessively over-confident about the quality of their manuscripts when reviewing. Furthermore, we assumed they could be sensitive to competitive pressures provided by the institutional context in which they were embedded. Results showed that the bias and quality of publications greatly depend on reviewer motivations but also that context pressures can have a negative effect. However, while excessive competition can be detrimental to minimising publication bias, a certain level of competition is instrumental to ensure the high quality of publication especially when scientists accept reviewing for reciprocity motives.

Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers

We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community. The model was empirically calibrated on two data sets, mono- and multi-disciplinary. Our results point out that disciplinary settings differ in the rapidity with which they deal with extreme events-papers that have an extremely high quality, that we call outliers. In the mono-disciplinary case, reputation is better than traditional peer review to optimize the quality of papers read by researchers. In the multi-disciplinary case, if the quality landscape is relatively flat, a reputation system also performs better. In the presence of outliers, peer review is more effective. Our simulation suggests that a reputation system could perform better than peer review as a scientific information filter for quality except when research is multi-disciplinary and in a field where outliers exist.

Dataset on statistical analysis of editorial board composition of Hindawi journals indexed in Emerging sources citation index

This data article contains the statistical analysis of the total, percentage and distribution of editorial board composition of 111 Hindawi journals indexed in Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) across the continents. The reliability of the data was shown using correlation, goodness-of-fit test, analysis of variance and statistical variability tests.