How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology

PURPOSE

Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Heteroptera research in Latin America and the Caribbean (Insecta, Hemiptera): status and perspectives in the 21st century

Latin American and the Caribbean regions (LAC) harbor one of the most biodiverse areas of the world, the Neotropics. True bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) are a diverse lineage of insects, with more than 45,000 species, particularly speciose in the Neotropical region. True bugs are fundamental in the dynamics of natural and modified ecosystems, with several species critical to agriculture and public health. We compiled Heteroptera research in LAC from 1998-2022 using bibliographic databases. Productivity, collaborative networks, and the main topics studied were analyzed. A total of 1,651 Heteroptera studies from LAC were found, with continuous growth being 2021 the most prolific. Four categories (Taxonomy of extant species, Faunistic inventories and new records, Pest species biology, and Community ecology) represent most of the published research. About 60 percent of the records evaluated correspond to five families (Pentatomidae, Reduviidae, Coreidae, Miridae, and Rhyparochromidae). We emphasize the need to keep working on Heteroptera taxonomy because it will allow further advances in other areas such as phylogenetic analyses, biogeography, ecology, and natural history, among others. The results of our analyses characterize the current state of heteropterology in the region, establishing a baseline for future studies and efforts to broaden the knowledge of the group.

Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers' ethics

The "publish or perish" approach has become an integral part of an academic's life when seeking positions, striving for promotions, or competing for funding. This approach often hinges on journal-based metrics which push researchers to seek publication in journals indexed in the Web of Science. Due to the pressure to publish a certain number of publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science, researchers might attempt to find a journal with a lower impact factor, i.e., less popular and visible journals in the scientific community. Even more concerning is the fact that researchers might publish their results in predatory journals. This paper analyzes the consequence of introducing a journal indicators-based academic evaluation by analyzing productivity and publication patterns of researchers. Moreover, this paper investigates the correlation between journal-based academic evaluation rules and researchers' ethics. The analysis is based on bibliometric data collected from the Web of Science database. The case study subject is the Serbian research landscape before and after the introduction of a journal metrics-based academic evaluation.

Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders' dishonest behavior?

With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010-2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct.

Marine indole alkaloid diversity and bioactivity. What do we know and what are we missing?

Covering: marine indole alkaloids (n = 2048) and their reported bioactivities up to the end of 2021Despite increasing numbers of marine natural products (MNPs) reported each year, most have only been examined for cytotoxic, antibacterial, and/or antifungal biological activities with the majority found to be inactive in these assays. In this context, why are natural products continuing to be examined in assays they are unlikely to show significant activity in, and what targets might be more useful for expanding knowledge of their biologically relevant chemical space? We have undertaken a meta-analysis of the biological activities for 2048 marine indole alkaloids (MIAs), a diverse sub-class of MNPs reported up to the end of 2021, and this has highlighted that the bioactivity potentials for up to 86% of published MIAs remains underexplored and/or undefined. Although most published MIAs are not cytotoxic or antimicrobial, there is a continued focus on using these assays to evaluate new structurally related analogues. Using cheminformatics analyses, the chemical diversity of the 2048 MIAs were clustered using fragment based fingerprints and their reported bioactivity potency towards specific disease targets was assessed for structure activity trends. These analyses showed that there are groups of MIAs that possess potent and diverse activities and that many analogues, previously tested only in cellular toxicity assays, could be better exploited to generate structure activity relationships associated with leads to treat emerging diseases. A collection of indole drug and drug-lead structures from non-natural sources were also incorporated into the dataset providing complementary bioactivity profiles that were further used to predict underexplored areas of potential new activity and to better direct future testing of MIAs. Our findings clearly suggest the biological evaluation of MIAs continues to be conducted on a narrow range of bioassays and disease targets, and that shifting the focus to non-toxic disease targets should provide expanded knowledge of biologically relevant chemical space aimed at maximising the potential of MIAs for drug discovery.

Keeping medical science trustworthy: The threat by predatory journals

Since most scientific journals tend to ask article processes costs from authors, a new category of journals has developed of which the business model is commonly exclusively based on financial contributions by authors. Such journals have become known as predatory journals. The financial contributions that they ask are not always lower than those asked by high-quality journals although they offer less: there is commonly no real review, texts are not edited, and there are commonly no printed editions. The lack of serious reviews makes predatory journals attractive, however, particularly for authors of low-quality (or even fraudulent) manuscripts. It is shown here that numerous - commonly fairly recent - journals, some of which may predatory, attract manuscripts by approaching authors of articles in high-quality journals like Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Publication of articles in such journals contaminates thorough literature and undermines the trustworthiness of the medical society. Any involvement in such journals (as an author, reviewer or editor) of such journals should therefore be discouraged.

Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences

Transparency and peer control are cornerstones of good scientific practice and entail the replication and reproduction of findings. The feasibility of replications, however, hinges on the premise that original researchers make their data and research code publicly available. This applies in particular to large-N observational studies, where analysis code is complex and may involve several ambiguous analytical decisions. To investigate which specific factors influence researchers' code sharing behavior upon request, we emailed code requests to 1,206 authors who published research articles based on data from the European Social Survey between 2015 and 2020. In this preregistered multifactorial field experiment, we randomly varied three aspects of our code request's wording in a 2x4x2 factorial design: the overall framing of our request (enhancement of social science research, response to replication crisis), the appeal why researchers should share their code (FAIR principles, academic altruism, prospect of citation, no information), and the perceived effort associated with code sharing (no code cleaning required, no information). Overall, 37.5% of successfully contacted authors supplied their analysis code. Of our experimental treatments, only framing affected researchers' code sharing behavior, though in the opposite direction we expected: Scientists who received the negative wording alluding to the replication crisis were more likely to share their research code. Taken together, our results highlight that the availability of research code will hardly be enhanced by small-scale individual interventions but instead requires large-scale institutional norms.

Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic and its resultant lockdowns have interrupted the way scientists live and work. This nevertheless caused an unforeseen impact of COVID-19: the pandemic substantially increased editorial speed. Here, we causally identify the impact of the pandemic on the editorial decision time, based on a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity (RD) design that compares (N = 339,199) papers submitted in the lead-up to and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that editors make acceptance decisions significantly quicker after the pandemic, reducing the editorial decision time of revised papers by 8.9 days on average. The pandemic, however, has unequal impacts on editors. The results reveal a larger reduction in editorial decision time for editors of high-tier journals, in the field of social science, or with busy work schedules. Finally, our findings also allude to the potential for the increase of editorial speed, and will stimulate policy changes in scientific enterprises that strive for accelerated publishing.

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals

Scientific publishing, with about 350-year historical background, has played a central role in advancing science by disseminating new findings, generalizing accepted theories, and sharing novel ideas. The number of scientific journals has exponentially grown from 10 at the end of the 17th century to 100,000 at the end of the 20th century. The publishing landscape has dramatically changed over time from printed journals to online publishing. Although scientific publishing was initially non-commercial, it has become a profitable industry with a significant global financial turnover, reaching $28 billion in annual revenue before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, scientific publishing has encountered several challenges and is suffering from unethical practices and some negative phenomena, like publish-or-perish, driven by the need to survive or get a promotion in academia. Developing a global landscape with collaborative non-commercial journals and platforms is a primary proposed model for the future of scientific publishing. Here, we provide a brief history of the foundation and development of scientific journals and their evolution over time. Furthermore, current challenges and future perspectives of scientific publishing are discussed.

More than just a number of publications: Unity Index, an alternative "ranking" for bibliometric analyses

This paper presents the unity index- an index designed in response to the call to find a more holistic way to assess scientific production. In this case, the scientific production is understood from a multivariate perspective using existing measurements, such as the number of publications, the number of, and the H-Index. It can be used especially when generating or assessing production in bibliometric studies. The index consists of a 3-part point system where points are assigned to the authors based on their position in the rank of the 3 traditional indicators for production, acceptance and impact. The index is calculated by attributing 1 point to the author with most published articles and increasing the number of points attributed by 1 to all the subsequent authors. The same point attribution is done to the remaining 2 indicators, acceptance -citations- and impact -h-index-. In the presented method, 3 different means of calculation are shared. Finally, the method is validated and different ways to analyze the results and generate insights are suggested.•The Unity Index offers a new way to assess scientific production from a multivariate perspective.•The index can be calculated easily using MS Excel formulas, but automatic ways of calculation are also easily available.•Bibliometric studies can profit from a less linear way to analyze the information and generate more insightful information and guide the research.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada

The phenomenon of “publish-or-perish” in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents’ beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents’ publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.

Tamquam alter idem: formal similarities in a subset of reports on anti-inflammatory compounds in the years 2008–2019

A literature search on the in vitro testing of anti-inflammatory compounds of natural origin revealed a considerable number of studies adopting a similar template for data reporting in the years up to 2019. Sixty-five such reports appear to have been published between the years 2008 and 2019. Interestingly, this format template was clearly recognizable by a few hallmarks, such as a precise way of plotting cell viability data, extremely consistent endpoints, and the way these were graphically represented. In some instances the similarities extended to some textual features, such as in the case of figure legends. The similarity was so high that chance can be excluded and these studies can be safely assumed to have intentionally followed a template. By 2020, however, no new reports following this format have been published. Although a consistent and reproducible formatting for data reporting may improve report readability, this phenomenon should also be closely scrutinized to assess the rationale why it occurred, the validity of the endpoints that were chosen and why it was then abandoned. The present report reviewed the mean features of this format, traced its origin and its evolution over time, while discussing the limitations of this model.

Critiques, Ethics, Prestige and Status: A Survey of Editors in Economics

This study examines survey data on the views of editors of economics journals on common critiques of the discipline, ethics and editorial practices, and the role of prestige and status in publishing. We utilize an ordered probit model to investigate whether editors or journal characteristics are systematically related to editors' views, controlling for gender and editorial position. Regression results show that editors from top-ranked journals are less likely to agree with common disciplinary critiques, more likely to support market solutions and less likely to agree with concerns about editorial practices.