WASP: Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published

Access to evidence-based care: a systematic review of trauma and surgical literature costs across resource settings

Background

Evidence-based medicine has become the foundation for surgeons around the world to provide the most effective surgical care. However, the article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees for surgical journals may be a barrier, particularly for those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature, inclusive of trauma, across resource settings.

Data sources

The Web of Science Core Collection database.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

A complete list of journals publishing surgical content between 2019 and 2020 was compiled. The most frequently indexed journals were reviewed using the individual journal websites to extract the type of access (ie, open, closed, hybrid), impact factors, publication languages, APCs, subscription pricing, and any discounts listed.

Results

The literature search revealed 4759 unique journals. The 500 most frequently indexed were reviewed. The mean APC for a fully open access surgical journal was US$1574 and for a hybrid surgical journal was US$3338. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal were US$434 and US$1878 for an individual and institution, respectively. When considering purchasing power parity, APCs and subscription costs ranged from 2 to 15 times more expensive in LMICs when compared with those in the USA.

Limitations

Primary search term was in English only, and only peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed.

Conclusions or implications of key findings

Although initiatives exist to support peer-reviewed journals in LMICs, there is an exorbitant cost for authors in these countries, as well as those in high-income countries that are not affiliated with a large institution, to either publish in, or access, a majority of surgical journals. Efforts to lower the overall cost of publishing must be made to provide greater access to medical literature.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202140227.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

A scoping review about LGBTQIAP+ people in oral health research

Oral health personnel must acknowledge the health needs of sexual and gender minorities. They should consult scientific literature to deepen their knowledge about sexuality, gender identity, general and oral health status, and treatment disparities among LGBTQIA+ people. The aim of this scoping review was to portray the development and current stage of internationally indexed literature approaching the oral health of this population. In this study, the search strategy used consisted of combinations of subject descriptors (MeSH terms), in two concept blocks: LGBTQIAP+ people and oral health. Global literature was searched through Medline (PUBMED), Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, and Scopus electronic databases, with no language or date restrictions. Records were selected and evaluated by two independent reviewers, under the supervision of three senior reviewers and the inclusion criteria resulted in 189 eligible papers. Since the first study was published in 1974, numbers increased over the decades, reaching 67 (35.4%) in 2010-2019. The most frequently studied populations were North American (42.9%) and European (19.0%) and the most frequent language of publication was English (99.0%). There were 38 open access papers (20.1%). Medical (57.7%) and dental journals (20.1%) predominated. Cross-sectional studies were found more frequently (65.1%), followed by the cohort type (11.1%). Oral manifestation of STI (58.7%) was the topic most frequently addressed. The search for literature approaching the oral health of LGBTQIAP+ people showed evidence of the need to encourage research reported in papers made easily available, with more robust scientific evidence, and on a broader scope of topics, including oral health needs and treatment, and planning of oral health services.

Open Access Articles Garner Increased Social Media Attention and Citation Rates Compared With Subscription Access Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

To better understand the research impact on social media, alternative web-based metrics (Altmetrics) were developed. Open access (OA) publishing, which allows for widespread distribution of scientific content, has become increasingly common in the medical literature. However, the relationship between OA publishing and social media impact remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and subscription access (SA) research articles within the orthopaedic and sports medicine literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Articles published as either OA or SA in 5 high-impact hybrid orthopaedic journals between January 2019 and December 2019 were analyzed. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a validated measure of social media attention. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and the number of shares on social media. Independent t tests and chi-square analyses were used to compare outcomes between OA and SA articles. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and AAS while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2143 articles (246 OA articles, 11.5%; 1897 SA articles, 88.5%) were included. The mean AAS among all OA articles was 62.4 ± 184.6 (range, 0-2032), whereas the mean AAS among all SA articles was 18.4 ± 109.8 (range, 0-3425), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). The mean citation rate among OA articles was significantly higher (17.0 ± 22.5; range, 0-139) than that of SA articles (8.6 ± 13.4; range, 0-169) (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that OA status (β = 15.15; P = .044), number of institutions (β = 2.13; P = .023), studies classified as epidemiological investigations (β = 107.40; P < .001), and disclosure of a conflict of interest (β = -11.18; P = .032) were significantly associated with a higher AAS.

CONCLUSION

OA articles resulted in significantly greater AAS and citations in comparison with SA articles. Articles published through the OA option in hybrid journals as well as those with a higher number of institutions, those that disclosed a conflict of interest, and those classified as epidemiological investigations were positively associated with greater AAS in addition to a greater number of citations. The potential for more extensive research dissemination inherent in the OA option may therefore translate into greater reach and social media attention.

Future trends and patterns in leachate biological treatment research from a bibliometric perspective

Leachate has become a great deal of concern due to its complex properties which are primarily caused by the high concentrations of organics and ammonia. Thus, proper leachate treatment is required prior to its discharge. Leachate can be treated in various ways, and biological treatment is one of the approaches. This treatment has been shown to be both effective and cost-efficient while offering the possibility of resource recovery in the form of bioenergy. In this study, the underlying patterns in publications related to leachate biological treatment were uncovered through bibliometric analysis. This study also lays the groundwork for a deeper understanding of the past, current, and future trends of the leachate biological treatment. Research publications from 1974 to 2021 were retrieved from the Scopus database, and it was identified that 2013 articles were published in the span of 47 years. From the analyzed publications, China played a leading role in publishing leachate biological treatment research articles as well as having the most productive institutions and authors. Meanwhile, the USA was found to be the most active country in initiating international collaborations with 33 countries. The research hotspots were also successfully identified using keyword co-occurrences analysis. Anaerobic digestion and constructed wetland were revealed to be the research hotspots. The critical role of biological treatment in removing nitrogen from leachate was also highlighted. Besides, numerous research gaps were identified in the application of aerobic granular sludge (AGS) for leachate treatment. This can be a potential area for research in the future. Finally, future research should be encouraged to focus on the use of sustainable treatment systems in which energy recovery in the form of biogases is promoted.

Predatory Journals- The Power of the Predator Versus the Integrity of the Honest

Over the last few decades, the authenticity and confidence of scientific work from around the world has been systematically corrupted by predatory journals and their affiliated publication houses. These journals predominantly prey on both aspiring and established academics and researchers from around the world, but primarily on individuals from developing countries, by aggressively soliciting manuscripts for a nominal publication fee without providing a robust editorial service or peer review system and ultimately promising fast track publication in a few days to weeks. Such journals may also diminish the opportunity for authors in developing countries from getting their original work published in legitimate journals. A majority of the work published in these pseudo journals aside from being incorrect and mundane, provide no advancement to science. But more importantly, the negative impact of these journals can have direct implications on patient health care and research.

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the 'Medicine' subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.

RESULTS

There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1-5) and 1471 (4, 2-8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0-US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0-US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Changing trends in otorhinolaryngology publishing

The aim of this study is to compare the changes in impact factors and citation numbers of Open Access (OA) vs subscription-based (SB) journals between 1999 and 2016 and to explore the changing trends in ORL publishing. All data extracted from SCImago Journal and Country ranking (SJR) website have been used as input for statistical analysis. The chi-square test of independency was applied in order to understand whether the ratio of number of OA journals of ORL category have dramatically changed between years 1999 and 2016. Also, the years and impact factors of journals belonging to the OA and SB journals have been graphed separately and the changes of annual SJR ranks of both journal types have been compared using one-way Z-test. There was a significant difference as the proportion of OA Journals were not equal to the proportion of SB Journals throughout the years 1999 and 2016, and it showed the tendency to increase greater compared to SB Journals (p < 0.01). Although the overall level of impact factors of SB journals was generally high, by comparing two regression models, it was obvious that the level of increase of the impact factors of OA journals were significantly higher (p < 0.01). When choosing where to publish, it is important to consider the journal’s visibility, cost of publication, IF or SJR of the journal and speed of publication as well as changing trends in medical publishing nourished by the Web of Science.

WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): How to write a scientific thesis

The prospect of writing a thesis is considered daunting by many but the task is a requisite when embarking into reading for any academic degree. A thesis is a written document following personal research. It is performed to obtain an academic degree or qualification, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level. When writing a thesis, it is imperative that the student follows the universal well-acknowledged structure format known as "IMRAD": i.e. Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. A summary of the thesis, known as the 'Abstract', is placed at the beginning of the "IMRAD", while all references cited in the thesis are placed at the very end. The thesis format is similar to a research manuscript prepared for publication in scientific journal, but there are significant differences between the two types of academic works. For example, the liberal use of graphical aides in the form of figures and/or tables enhances the delivery of results. It is essential to ensure that all the literature referred to in the thesis is cited, while paying particular attention to potential plagiarism. When writing a thesis, the student needs to keep in mind three factors: [1] the structure, [2] the substance and [3] the style. Once the student has developed a good plan for thesis layout, then writing becomes greatly faciliated.