The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Barriers and facilitators to ethical co-production with Autistic people with an eating disorder

BACKGROUND

Co-production is the collaboration between researchers and the lived experience community in designing, conducting and sharing research. The importance of co-production is increasingly advocated in both the autism and eating disorder fields. Despite this, there remains a lack of clarity at how to define, apply and conduct ethical co-production. Understanding common challenges and what we can do to overcome these challenges are integral to ensuring ethical and meaningful research with Autistic people with an eating disorder. The current study therefore explored: What are the barriers and facilitators to ethical co-production with Autistic people with an ED?

METHODS

Five workshops were conducted with 30 collaborators exploring barriers and facilitators to ethical co-production. Synchronous (online workshops) and asynchronous (offline discussion forum) data was analysed using thematic analysis. Themes were co-produced by a neurotypical and Autistic researcher with lived/living experience of an eating disorder.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified that explored barriers to ethical co-production: unequal partnerships, the inaccessibility of research, excluded by diagnoses and communication differences. Three themes were identified with regards to facilitators of ethical co-production: shared power (with sub-themes relationships, not roles and creative compensation), clarity and transparency and autism-affirming approaches.

DISCUSSION

Conducting ethical co-production with Autistic people with eating disorders has the potential to generate meaningful research that can be translated into improving the lives of the Autistic and eating disorder community. To achieve this, co-production teams should strive towards shared power and long-term relationships, adapting for communication differences and preferences and operating firmly within an autism-affirming framework. It is hoped that study findings will inspire collaboration, discussion and novel, translatable research.

"Researchers' perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey"

The term "Predatory" alludes to the assumption that these organizations prey on academics for financial gain by charging article processing charges (APC) while failing to meet scholarly publishing standards.Predatory publishing is a growing threat to the academic society. Considering this,the University Grants Commission (UGC),India's statutory body for higher education,has responded by launching the University Grants Commission-Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (UGC-CARE) list,which attempts to promote research quality,integration,and publication ethics.An online survey was undertaken to determine the perception and awareness of North Eastern Hill University's researchers concerning predatory journals.A total of 160 respondents were recorded.The survey reveals that while the majority of participants (58.75%) were aware of predatory publications, a significant portion (41.25%) were not.It was found that a journal's listing in UGC-CARE list is the most crucial factor in submitting an original manuscript for publication.Researchers,aware of the negative consequences of publishing in piracy-related publications,prefer not to submit their scientific work to such publishers as it risk tarnishing their reputation.As a result,research findings emphasize the necessity for awareness initiatives to educate researchers about predatory publications early in their academic careers.Research initiatives like the UGC-CARE list should be encouraged to minimize predatory publishing; promote quality and transparency in research.Abbreviation: NEHU- North Eastern Hill University, UGC- University Grants Commission, APC- Article Processing Charge, UGC-CARE- University Grants Commission - Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics, DOAJ- Directory of Open Access Journals, DOI - Digital Object Identifiers, API- Academic Performance Indicator.

Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses

Open science principles are revolutionizing the transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research. Meta-analysis has become a key technique for synthesizing data across studies in a principled way; however, its impact is contingent on adherence to open science practices. Here, we outline 9 quick tips for open meta-analyses, aimed at guiding researchers to maximize the reach and utility of their findings. We advocate for outlining preregistering clear protocols, opting for open tools and software, and the use of version control systems to ensure transparency and facilitate collaboration. We further emphasize the importance of reproducibility, for example, by sharing search syntax and analysis scripts, and discuss the benefits of planning for dynamic updating to enable living meta-analyses. We also recommend publication in open-access formats, as well as open data, open code, and open access publication. We close by encouraging active promotion of research findings to bridge the gap between complex syntheses and public discourse, and provide a detailed submission checklist to equip researchers, reviewers and journal editors with a structured approach to conducting and reporting open meta-analyses.

Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration

This educational article explores the convergence of open science practices and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), shedding light on the potential benefits and challenges of open science for the development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based TCIM. We emphasize the transformative shift in medical science towards open and collaborative practices, highlighting the limited application of open science in TCIM research despite its growing acceptance among patients. We define open science practices and discuss those that are applicable to TCIM, including: study registration; reporting guidelines; data, code and material sharing; preprinting; publishing open access; and reproducibility/replication studies. We explore the benefits of open science in TCIM, spanning improved research quality, increased public trust, accelerated innovation, and enhanced evidence-based decision-making. We also acknowledge challenges such as data privacy concerns, limited resources, and resistance to cultural change. We propose strategies to overcome these challenges, including ethical guidelines, education programs, funding advocacy, interdisciplinary dialogue, and patient engagement. Looking to the future, we envision the maturation of open science in TCIM, the development of TCIM-specific guidelines for open science practices, advancements in data sharing platforms, the integration of open data and artificial intelligence in TCIM research, and changes in the context of policy and regulation. We foresee a future where open science in TCIM leads to a better evidence base, informed decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transformative impacts on healthcare and research methodologies, highlighting the promising synergy between open science and TCIM for holistic, evidence-based healthcare solutions.

Guiding Principles for Community Building in Global Oncology

With the escalating incidence and prevalence of cancer worldwide disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries, there is an urgent need for the global oncology community to foster bidirectional partnerships and an equitable exchange of knowledge, resources, and expertise. A dedicated Global Oncology Community of Practice (CoP) can serve as a self-organizing, grassroots approach for members, with common goals and values, to coordinate efforts, maximize impact, and ensure sustainable outcomes. It is imperative, however, when outlining goals and priorities to adhere to an ethical and appropriate framework during community building efforts to avoid perpetuating inequities and power imbalances. This article reviews the core guiding principles for ASCO's Global Oncology CoP which includes responsibility, amplification, accessibility, sustainability, and decolonization.

The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review

Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society's problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.

Get Free Copy: a multi-repository search platform for biomedical publications

We introduce Get Free Copy (https://getfreecopy.com), a web-based platform designed to streamline the search for biomedical literature across major repositories like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and PubMed Central (PMC). Addressing challenges posed by paywalls and fragmented databases, it offers a unified interface for efficient retrieval of free, legitimate copies of biomedical literature. The platform's implementation involves a Node.js backend and dynamic front-end display, enhancing accessibility and research efficiency. As an open-source project, Get Free Copy represents a significant contribution to the open-access movement, inviting global researcher collaboration for further development.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period.

METHODS

This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.

RESULTS

We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Open Access and Reproducibility in Plant Pathology Research: Guidelines and Best Practices

The landscape of scientific publishing is experiencing a transformative shift toward open access, a paradigm that mandates the availability of research outputs such as data, code, materials, and publications. Open access provides increased reproducibility and allows for reuse of these resources. This article provides guidance for best publishing practices of scientific research, data, and associated resources, including code, in The American Phytopathological Society journals. Key areas such as diagnostic assays, experimental design, data sharing, and code deposition are explored in detail. This guidance aligns with that observed by other leading journals. We hope the information assembled in this paper will raise awareness of best practices and enable greater appraisal of the true effects of biological phenomena in plant pathology.

Dissemination of scientific information through open access by research scientists in a developing country

This study investigated the perceptions and factors that researchers had about Open Access (OA) publishing, specifically how it affected their decision to publish or not. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory by Rogers served as the study's main guide, and 15 research scientists from Ghana's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research's Crop Research Institute provided qualitative data for the study through semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist research paradigm. Convenience sampling was used to choose the participants, and thematic analysis was used to analyse and present the research results in themes. The study's conclusions showed that all of the participants benefited from OA and that they were all aware of its application for disseminating scientific information. High Article Processing Charges (APC) and credibility issues were also mentioned in the study as significant obstacles to using OA for the dissemination of scientific information. The study suggests that in order for scientists to use Open Access (OA) for the sharing of scientific information, they must be given the means to distinguish trustworthy journals from predatory ones.

Top 100 highly cited sustainability researchers

The announcement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provided a fresh direction to sustainability research that spans different disciplines. Consequently, scholarly databases made available the mapping of research publications to different SDGs, unleashing many opportunities for analysis. In this work, the top 100 Highly Cited Sustainability Researchers (HCSRs) and information related to them, such as the institutions they belong to, the type of these institutions, the geographical diversity of these researchers, and gender representation patterns, are analyzed. Also, from their publications, their publication pattern, including (i) the least and most researched SDGs, (ii) their Open Access publishing pattern, (iii) their collaboration pattern (iv) the pattern of their research impact, are analyzed. The most sought thematic areas of their research, top journals in which they publish, important research categories handled by these journals, etc., are also investigated. The most significant contribution of these researchers and their recent contributions are also discussed. The data indicates a significant disparity in research focus among the top 100 HCSRs, with most concentrating on "Good Health and Well Being," "Zero Hunger," and "Quality Education," while notably fewer researchers focus on "Decent Work and Economic Growth" and "No Poverty," underscoring the need for a more balanced research agenda across all SDGs. The study reveals that the United States, China, and the United Kingdom are the leading contributors to the top 100 HCSRs, suggesting that these countries are predominant in global sustainability research output, while nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia also make notable, albeit smaller, contributions. The institutional affiliations of HCSRs show a significant imbalance, with only 16 from private institutions compared to 84 from public ones. Specifically, it shows that out of the top 100 researchers, 93 are men, while only 7 are women. The analysis of authorship in publications by HCSRs reveals a tendency towards middle and last author positions, underscoring their collaborative and leadership roles within the research community. All these analyses can inform academia, industry, and policymakers about the most significant developments in research regarding SDGs.

Advancing equity in cross-cultural psychology: embracing diverse epistemologies and fostering collaborative practices

Psychology, and cross-cultural psychology (CCP) in particular, plays a pivotal role in understanding the intricate relationship between culture and human behavior. This paper sheds light on the challenges of inequity and marginalization, especially concerning scholarship from the Global South, which have roots in historical colonial practices. It highlights how intellectual extractivism and the predominance of Western research methodologies often overlook the contributions of Global South scholars and indigenous ways of knowing. Such imbalances risk narrowing the scope of psychological inquiry, privileging American and European perspectives, and undermining the richness of global human experiences. This paper calls for a shift toward more equitable collaborations and the recognition of diverse epistemologies. By advocating for genuine representation in research and valuing local knowledge, it proposes pathways for a more inclusive and authentic exploration of human behavior across cultures.

Understanding priorities and needs for child and adolescent mental health in Greece from multiple informants: an open resource dataset

The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Initiative (CAMHI) aims to enhance mental health care capacity for children and adolescents across Greece. Considering the need for evidence-based policy, the program developed an open-resource dataset for researching the field within the country. A comprehensive, mixed-method, community-based research was conducted in 2022/2023 assessing the current state, needs, barriers, and opportunities according to multiple viewpoints. We surveyed geographically distributed samples of 1,756 caregivers, 1,201 children/adolescents, 404 schoolteachers, and 475 health professionals using validated instruments to assess mental health symptoms, mental health needs, literacy and stigma, service use and access, professional practices, training background, and training needs and preferences. Fourteen focus groups were conducted with informants from diverse populations (including underrepresented minorities) to reach an in-depth understanding of those topics. A dataset with quantitative and qualitative findings is now available for researchers, policymakers, and society [ https://osf.io/crz6h/ and https://rpubs.com/camhi/sdashboard ]. This resource offers valuable data for assessing the needs and priorities for child and adolescent mental health care in Greece. It is now freely available to consult, and is expected to inform upcoming research and evidence-based professional training. This initiative may inspire similar ones in other countries, informing methodological strategies for researching mental health needs.

Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology

Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) offers the option to publish articles in different tiers of an open access (OA) publishing system: Green, Bronze, or Hybrid. Green articles follow a standard access (SA) subscription model, in which readers must pay a subscription fee to access article content on the publisher's website. Bronze articles are selected at the publisher's discretion and offer free availability to readers at the same article processing charge (APC) as Green articles. Hybrid articles are fully OA, but authors pay an increased APC to ensure public access. Here, we aimed to determine whether publishing tier affect the impact and reach of scientific articles in NPP. A sample of 6000 articles published between 2001-2021 were chosen for the analysis. Articles were separated by article type and publication year. Citation counts and Altmetric scores were compared between the three tiers. Bronze articles received significantly more citations than Green and Hybrid articles overall. However, when analyzed by year, Bronze and Hybrid articles received comparable citation counts within the past decade. Altmetric scores were comparable between all tiers, although this effect varied by year. Our findings indicate that free availability of article content on the publisher's website is associated with an increase in citations of NPP articles but may only provide a moderate boost in Altmetric score. Overall, our results suggest that easily accessible article content is most often cited by readers, but that the higher APCs of Hybrid tier publishing may not guarantee increased scholarly or social impact.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Identifying the most important facilitators of open research data sharing and reuse in Epidemiology: A mixed-methods study

To understand how open research data sharing and reuse can be further improved in the field of Epidemiology, this study explores the facilitating role that infrastructural and institutional arrangements play in this research discipline. It addresses two research questions: 1) What influence do infrastructural and institutional arrangements have on open research data sharing and reuse practices in the field of Epidemiology? And 2) how could infrastructural and institutional instruments used in Epidemiology potentially be useful to other research disciplines? First, based on a systematic literature review, a conceptual framework of infrastructural and institutional instruments for open research data facilitation is developed. Second, the conceptual framework is applied in interviews with Epidemiology researchers. The interviews show that two infrastructural and institutional instruments have a very high influence on open research data sharing and reuse practices in the field of Epidemiology, namely (a) access to a powerful search engine that meets open data search needs and (b) support by data stewards and data managers. Third, infrastructural and institutional instruments with a medium, high, or very high influence were discussed in a research workshop involving data stewards and research data officers from different research fields. This workshop suggests that none of the influential instruments identified in the interviews are specific to Epidemiology. Some of our findings thus seem to apply to multiple other disciplines. This study contributes to Science by identifying field-specific facilitators and challenges for open research data in Epidemiology, while at the same time revealing that none of the identified influential infrastructural and institutional instruments were specific to this field. Practically, this implies that open data infrastructure developers, policymakers, and research funding organizations may apply certain infrastructural and institutional arrangements to multiple research disciplines to facilitate and enhance open research data sharing and reuse.

Cost of open access publishing in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery

Objective

Open access (OA) publishing makes research more accessible but is associated with steep article processing charges (APCs). The study objective was to characterize the APCs of OA publishing in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) journals.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of published policies of 110 OHNS journals collated from three databases. The primary outcomes were the publishing model, APC for original research, and APC waiver policy.

Results

We identified 110 OHNS journals (57 fully OA, 47 hybrid, 2 subscription-only, 4 unknown model). After excluding 12 journals (2 subscription-only, 4 unknown model, 5 OA with unspecified APCs, and 1 OA that accepts publications only from society members), we analyzed 98 journals, 23 of which did not charge APCs. Among 75 journals with nonzero APCs, the mean and median APCs were $2452 and $2900 (interquartile range: $1082-3520). Twenty-five journals (33.3%) offered APC subsidies for authors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and/or on a case-by-case basis. Eighty-five and 25 journals were based in high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs, respectively. The mean APC was higher among HIC journals than LMIC journals ($2606 vs. $958, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

APCs range from tens to thousands of dollars with limited waivers for authors in LMICs.

The impact of open access mandates on scientific research and technological development in the U.S

Getting to a net-zero emissions economy requires faster development and diffusion of novel clean energy technologies. We exploit a rare natural experiment to study the impact of an open-access mandate on the diffusion of scientific research into patented technologies. From 2014 onwards, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) required its 17 National Laboratories (NLs) to publish all peer-reviewed scientific articles without a paywall. Using data from more than 300,000 scientific publications between 2012 and 2018, we show that scientific articles subject to the mandate were used on average 42% more in patents, despite embargo periods of up to 12 months. We also show that articles subject to the mandate were not cited more frequently by other academic articles. Our findings suggest that the mandate primarily contributed to technological development but has not led to additional academic research. Lastly, we show that small firms were the primary beneficiaries of the increased diffusion of scientific knowledge.

Trans-O-MIM-An International Research Project on Open Access Transformation: Outcomes and Lessons Learned

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, the Open Access paradigm has become an important approach for publishing new scientific knowledge. From 2015 to 2020, the Trans-O-MIM research project was undertaken with the intention to identify and to explore solutions in transforming subscription-based journals into Open Access journals. Trans-O-MIM stands for strategies, models, and evaluation metrics for the goal-oriented, stepwise, sustainable, and fair transformation of established subscription-based scientific journals into Open-Access-based journals with Methods of Information in Medicine as an example.

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview of the outcomes of the Trans-O-MIM research project as a whole and to share our major lessons learned.

METHODS

As an approach for transforming journals, a Tandem Model has been proposed and implemented for Methods of Information in Medicine. For developing a metric to observe and assess journal transformations, scenario analysis has been used. A qualitative and a two-tier quantitative study on drivers and obstacles of Open Access publishing for medical informatics researchers was designed and conducted. A project setup with a research team, a steering committee, and an international advisory board was established. Major international medical informatics events have been used for reporting and for receiving feedback.

RESULTS

Based on the Tandem Model, the journal Methods of Information in Medicine has been transformed into a journal where, in addition to its subscription-based track, from 2017 onwards a Gold Open Access track has been successfully added. An evaluation metric, composed of 5 scenarios and 65 parameters, has been developed, which can assist respective decision makers in assessing such transformations. The studies on drivers and obstacles of Open Access publishing showed that, while most researchers support the idea of making scientific knowledge freely accessible to everyone, they are hesitant about actually living this practice by choosing Open Access journals to publish their own work. Article-processing charges and quality issues are perceived as the main obstacles in this respect, revealing a two-sided evaluation of Open Access models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors or readers. Especially researchers from low-income countries benefit from a barrier-free communication mainly in their role as readers and much less in their role as authors of scientific information. This became also evident at the institutional level, as Open Access policies or financial support through funding bodies are most prevalent in Europe and North America.

CONCLUSION

With Trans-O-MIM, an international research project was performed. An existing journal has been transformed. In addition, with the support of the International Medical Informatics Association, as well as of the European Federation for Medical Informatics and of the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology as European and German medical informatics organizations, we did run an international experiment on Open Access incentives. Both together are, as far as the authors know, unique. We therefore expect that this research could add new knowledge on Open Access transformation.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.

METHODS

All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

RESULTS

A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals

PURPOSE

This study examined the effect of open access (OA) status on scholarly and societal metrics of impact (citation counts and altmetric scores, respectively) across manuscripts published in the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Journals.

METHOD

Three thousand four hundred nineteen manuscripts published in four active ASHA Journals were grouped across three access statuses based on their availability to the public: Gold OA, Green OA, and Closed Access. Two linear mixed-effects models tested the effects of OA status on citation counts and altmetric scores of the manuscripts.

RESULTS

Both Green OA and Gold OA significantly predicted a 2.70 and 5.21 respective increase in citation counts compared with Closed Access manuscripts (p < .001). Gold OA was estimated to predict a 25.7-point significant increase in altmetric scores (p < .001), but Green OA was only marginally significant (p = .68) in predicting a 1.44 increase in altmetric scores relative to Closed Access manuscripts.

DISCUSSION

Communication sciences and disorders (CSD) research that is fully open receives more online attention and, overall, more scientific attention than research that is paywalled or available through Green OA methods. Additional research is needed to understand secondary variables affecting these and other scholarly and societal metrics of impact across studies in CSD. Ongoing support and incentives to reduce the inequities of OA publishing are critical for continued scientific advancement. Open Science Form: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21766919.

Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980-2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.

RESULTS

Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018-2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%-41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5-5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6-2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC - r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology - r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).

CONCLUSION

OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.

The journey of F1000Research since inception: through bibliometric analysis

Background: Bibliometric analysis is an approach adopted by researchers to understand the various analytics such as year-wise publications, their citations, most impactful authors and their contributions, identification of emerging keywords, multiple themes (niche, motor, basic, and emerging or declining) etc. F1000Research is one of the Q1 category journals that publishes articles in various domains, but a detailed journal analysis is yet to be done. Methods: This study is an effort to extract the F1000Research journey information through bibliometric analysis using VOS-viewer and Biblioshiny (R-studio) interface. The F1000Research journal started its journey in 2012; since then, 5767 articles have been published until the end of 2022. Most of the published articles are from medical science, covering Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology, Immunology & Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics. To understand the research journey, various analyses such as publication & citation trends, leading authors, institutions, countries, most frequent keywords, bibliographic coupling between authors, countries and documents, emerging research themes, and trending keywords were performed. Results: The United States is the biggest contributor, and COVID-19 is the most commonly occurred keyword. Conclusions: The present study may help future researchers to understand the emerging medical science domain. It will also help the editors and journal to focus more on developing or emerging areas and to understand their importance towards society. Future researchers can contribute their quality research studies, focusing on emerging themes. These authors' research can guide future researchers to develop their research area around the most impacted articles. They can collaborate with them to bring that emerging theme forward.

Using the future wheel methodology to assess the impact of open science in the transport sector

Open Science enhances information sharing and makes scientific results of transport research more transparent and accessible at all levels and to everyone allowing integrity and reproducibility. However, what future impacts will Open Science have on the societal, environmental and economic development within the transport sector? Using the Future Wheel methodology, we conducted a workshop with transport experts from both industry and academia to answer this question. The main findings of this study point in the direction of previous studies in other fields, in terms of increased innovation, increased efficiency, economic savings, more equality, and increased participation of citizens. In addition, we found several potential transport specific impacts: lower emission, faster travel times, improved traffic safety, increased awareness for transport policies, artificial intelligence improving mobility services. Several potential negative outcomes of Open Science were also identified by the expert group: job loss, new types of risks, increased cost, increased conflicts, time delays, increased inequality and increased energy consumption. If we know the negative outcomes it is much easier to put in place strategies that are sustainable for a broader stakeholder group, which also increase the probability of taking advantage of all the positive impacts of Open Science.

Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse

Purpose

Systematic reviews have an important, and growing, role to play in the global evidence eco-system of domestic violence and abuse. Alongside substantive contributions to knowledge, such reviews stimulate debates about ethical reviewing practices and the importance of tailoring methods to the nuances of the field. This paper aims to pinpoint a set of ethical and methodological priorities to guide and enhance review practices specifically in the field of domestic abuse.

Method

The five Pillars of the Research Integrity Framework (ethical guidelines for domestic abuse research) are used to interrogate the systematic review process. To do so, the Framework is retrospectively applied to a recently completed systematic review in domestic abuse. The review included a rapid systematic map and in-depth analysis of interventions aimed at creating or enhancing informal support and social networks for victim-survivors of abuse.

Results

Ethical and methodological priorities for systematic reviews in domestic abuse include (1) Safety and wellbeing: maintaining the wellbeing of researchers and stakeholders, and appraising the ethics of included studies, (2) Transparency/ accountability: transparent reporting of research funding, aims and methods together with explicit consideration of authorship of outputs, (3) Equality, human rights and social justice: developing diverse review teams/ Advisory groups, and review methods that aim to search for, and report, diverse perspectives. Considering researcher positionality/ reflexivity in the review, (4) Engagement: collaboration with non-academic stakeholders and individuals with lived experience throughout the review process, (5) Research Ethics: independent ethical scrutiny of systematic review proposals with input from researchers with expertise in systematic reviews and domestic abuse.

Conclusion

Additional research is required to comprehensively examine the ethics of each stage of the review process. In the meantime, attention should be given to the underpinning ethical framework for our systematic review practices and the wider research infrastructure that governs reviews.

Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

Biomedical fields have seen a remarkable increase in hybrid Gold open access articles. However, it is uncertain whether the hybrid Gold open access option contributes to a citation advantage, an increase in the citations of articles made immediately available as open access regardless of the article’s quality or whether it involves a trending topic of discussion. This study aimed to compare the citation counts of hybrid Gold open access articles to subscription articles published in hybrid journals. The study aimed to ascertain if hybrid Gold open access publications yield an advantage in terms of citations. This cross-sectional study included the list of hybrid journals under 59 categories in the ‘Clinical Medicine’ group from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 2018–2021. The number of citable items with ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Subscription and Free to Read’ in each journal, as well as the number of citations of those citable items, were extracted from JCR. A hybrid Gold open access citation advantage was computed by dividing the number of citations per citable item with hybrid Gold open access by the number of citations per citable item with a subscription. A total of 498, 636, 1009, and 1328 hybrid journals in the 2018 JCR, 2019 JCR, 2020 JCR, and 2021 JCR, respectively, were included in this study. The citation advantage of hybrid Gold open access articles over subscription articles in 2018 was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.65); in 2019, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.41); in 2020, it was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20–1.39); and in 2021, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.42). In the ‘Clinical Medicine’ discipline, the articles published in the hybrid journal as hybrid Gold open access had a greater number of citations when compared to those published as a subscription, self-archived, or otherwise openly accessible option.

A bibliometric analysis of global research on drinking water and health in low- and lower-middle-income countries

Heightened interest in drinking water research in recent decades has been aimed at narrowing the knowledge gaps surrounding water and health in a global pursuit to provide safely managed drinking water services to populations who continue to lack access. This study used bibliometrics and network analysis to produce a global overview of publications and groups that have contributed to research on drinking water and health in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). The United States and the United Kingdom, which have historically dominated the field based on the production and impact of scientific literature, remain at the center of international collaborative research partnerships with emerging countries. However, in recent years, the volume of publications produced by India has surpassed that of the United States while Bangladesh is ranked third for the strongest international collaborations. Iran and Pakistan are also emerging as major producers of research, yet publications out of these countries and India remain disproportionately restricted behind paywalls. Contamination, diarrheal disease, and water resources are the themes that characterize the majority of research on water and health. These findings may be used to accelerate equitable, inclusive research in the realm of water and health, thereby enabling gaps in global drinking water inequalities to be filled.

Mixed cumulative probit: a multivariate generalization of transition analysis that accommodates variation in the shape, spread and structure of data

Biological data are frequently nonlinear, heteroscedastic and conditionally dependent, and often researchers deal with missing data. To account for characteristics common in biological data in one algorithm, we developed the mixed cumulative probit (MCP), a novel latent trait model that is a formal generalization of the cumulative probit model usually used in transition analysis. Specifically, the MCP accommodates heteroscedasticity, mixtures of ordinal and continuous variables, missing values, conditional dependence and alternative specifications of the mean response and noise response. Cross-validation selects the best model parameters (mean response and the noise response for simple models, as well as conditional dependence for multivariate models), and the Kullback-Leibler divergence evaluates information gain during posterior inference to quantify mis-specified models (conditionally dependent versus conditionally independent). Two continuous and four ordinal skeletal and dental variables collected from 1296 individuals (aged birth to 22 years) from the Subadult Virtual Anthropology Database are used to introduce and demonstrate the algorithm. In addition to describing the features of the MCP, we provide material to help fit novel datasets using the MCP. The flexible, general formulation with model selection provides a process to robustly identify the modelling assumptions that are best suited for the data at hand.

Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers

Open Research aims to make research more accessible, transparent, reproducible, shared and collaborative. Doing so is meant to democratize and diversify access to knowledge and knowledge production, and ensure that research is useful outside of academic contexts. Increasing equity is therefore a key aim of the Open Research movement, yet mounting evidence demonstrates that the practices of Open Research are implemented in ways that undermine this. In response, we convened a diverse community of researchers, research managers and funders to co-create actionable recommendations for supporting the equitable implementation of Open Research. Using a co-creative modified Delphi method, we generated consensus-driven recommendations that address three key problem areas: the resource-intensive nature of Open Research, the high cost of article processing charges, and obstructive reward and recognition practices at funders and research institutions that undermine the implementation of Open Research. In this paper, we provide an overview of these issues, a detailed description of the co-creative process, and present the recommendations and the debates that surrounded them. We discuss these recommendations in relation to other recently published ones and conclude that implementing ours requires 'global thinking' to ensure that a systemic and inclusive approach to change is taken.

Limitations of the “Indian one nation, one subscription” policy proposal and a way forward

Indian science funding agencies have taken several policy measures to expedite access to scholarly knowledge. The proposed “one nation, one subscription” plan is one such initiative. The main aim of this initiative is to facilitate the availability and accessibility of research articles for all higher educational institutions (HEI). This paper reflects upon the suitability and aptness of this suggested policy through an analysis of Open Access (OA) publication trends. Using Scopus and other web sources, this article tracks how the OA publishing scenario (STEM fields) is changing in India and other top publishing countries. Based on the findings, we argue that a national subscription contract is limiting its scope by considering only the option of subscription and disregarding OA publishing options. However, subscription and open access publishing deals are short-term gains and will ultimately increase the dependency on commercial publishers. In the long term, encouraging research that helps solve local context-specific problems can only be addressed by strengthening the publishing infrastructure by national research funding agencies or respective higher educational institutions through publishing and promoting open access content.

Researchers’ perceptions, patterns, motives, and challenges in self-archiving as a function of the discipline

The green open access (OA) model, which offers the most economical approach to comply with open access policies, can increase researchers’ audience and scientific outputs impact by delivering wider and easier access. This study examined researchers’ perceptions from STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) and SSH (social sciences, art and humanities) disciplines in order to reveal the types, patterns, motives, and challenges underlying their articles’ self-archiving in the green route to open-access (repositories and institutional repositories) and ASNs (academic social networks). Interviews were conducted with 20 Israeli academic researchers. Half were from STEM and half from SSH disciplines. Interviews were mapped using a bottom-up thematic analysis and follow-up quantitative comparisons. According to the findings, STEM researchers self-archived pre/post-print versions of their articles to subject-based repositories as a part of their discipline norm resulting from their funding grant requirements and as a way to receive recognition and claim priority. SSH researchers post a link to the printed-published article at the publisher’s website in ASNs, and their goal is greater visibility. In addition, findings indicate a lack of awareness, mostly by SSH researchers, regarding copyright issues and OA repositories. The green OA model provides opportunities for researchers to self-archive their work. However, there are differences between the disciplines regarding where, when, why, and how to self-archive, and what is considered a legitimate mode of green OA. This indicates an urgent need to raise SSH researchers’ awareness of the existence of open subject-based repositories and of the terms of self-archiving from publishers.

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.

Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality

For two decades, the international scholarly publishing community has been embroiled in a divisive debate about the best model for funding the dissemination of scientific research. Some may assume that this debate has been thoroughly resolved in favour of the Open Access (OA) model of scientific publishing. Recent commentaries reveal a less settled reality. This narrative review aims to lay out the nature of these deep divisions among the sector's stakeholders, reflects on their systemic drivers and considers the future prospects for actualising OA's intended benefits and surmounting its risks and costs. In the process, we highlight some of inequities OA presents for junior or unfunded researchers, and academics from resource-poor environments, for whom an increasing body of evidence shows clear evidence of discrimination and injustice caused by Article Processing Charges. The authors are university-appointed researchers working the UK and South Africa, trained in disciplines ranging from medicine and epidemiology to social science and digital science. We have no vested interest in any particular model of scientific publication, and no conflicts of interest to declare. We believe the issues we identify are pertinent to almost all research disciplines.

The call for science communication and public scholarship

This commentary calls for a collective shift in the sciences and academia to prioritize and invest in communicating research in ways that are engaging, relevant, and accessible to public audiences. We provide the context and rationale for increasing and enhancing science communication, and identify barriers that prevent health researchers, educators, and practitioners from engaging with the public. Academic institutions need to develop and implement policies that encourage and support science communication and public scholarship initiatives that are sustainable and scalable.

Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

Twitter has become an important promotional tool for scholarly work, but individual academic publications have varied degrees of visibility on the platform. We explain this variation through the concept of Twitter-worthiness: factors making certain academic publications more likely to be visible on Twitter. Using publications from communication studies as our analytical case, we conduct statistical analyses of 32187 articles spanning 82 journals. Findings show that publications from G12 countries, covering social media topics and published open access tend to be mentioned more on Twitter. Similar to prior studies, this study demonstrates that Twitter mentions are associated with peer citations. Nevertheless, Twitter also has the potential to reinforce pre-existing disparities between communication research communities, especially between researchers from developed and less-developed regions. Open access, however, does not reinforce such disparities.

Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States

Objective

Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory."

Methods

A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF).

Results

Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Global Research in Odonata: Trends and Gaps

Insects of the order Odonata have been used as indicators of environmental quality in different aquatic systems around the world. In this context, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to understand the general patterns of research on Odonata published in the past decade (2012–2021). We extracted literature from the Web of Science (WoS) in the advanced search option and used search terms related to Odonata plus search strings for each term. A total of 2764 Odonata publications were identified. The journals with the most published articles on Odonata were Zootaxa, International Journal of Odonatology and Odonatologica. The countries with the most Odonata publications were the USA, Brazil and China. Most studies were conducted on streams, ponds and rivers. Ecology, taxonomy and behavior were the main study topics. Of the total articles on Odonata, 982 involved Zygoptera and 946 Anisoptera. Another 756 studies were focused on both suborders. The increase in ecological and taxonomic studies of Odonata reflects the dynamic characteristics of this order, and its relatively well-defined systematics, especially in the case of adults. Despite the recent increase in the number of publications, there are still many gaps related to topics such as biogeography, parasitism, competition within and between species, evolutionary and phylogenetic relationships, as well as studies of the eggs (e.g., their development) and larval exuviae (e.g., their morphological features).

Open access and its potential impact on public health - A South African perspective

Traditionally, access to research information has been restricted through journal subscriptions. This means that research entities and individuals who were unable to afford subscription costs did not have access to journal articles. There has however been a progressive shift toward electronic access to journal publications and subsequently growth in the number of journals available globally. In the context of electronic journals, both open access and restricted access options exist. While the latter option is comparable to traditional, subscription-based paper journals, open access journal publications follow an "open science" publishing model allowing scholarly communications and outputs to be publicly available online at no cost to the reader. However, for readers to enjoy open access, publication costs are shifted elsewhere, typically onto academic institutions and authors. SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the benefits of open science through accelerated research and unprecedented levels of collaboration and data sharing. South Africa is one of the leading open access countries on the African continent. This paper focuses on open access in the South African higher education research context with an emphasis on our Institution and our own experiences. It also addresses the financial implications of open access and provides possible solutions for reducing the cost of publication for researchers and their institutions. Privacy in open access and the role of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in medical research and secondary use of data in South Africa will also be discussed.

Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective

Medical education faces a difficult challenge today; an exponential increase in knowledge and the rise and rise of disruptive technologies are making traditional education obsolete. As the world nears the era of Industry and Healthcare 4.0, the medical community needs to keep up and prepare physicians for a hyper-connected digital world. Virtual neurological care is poised to be at the forefront of care delivery claims, yet the virtual communication of neurological knowledge is still in its infancy. This increasing digitalization of care and education is both an opportunity and a challenge. With this paper, the authors aim to bridge the gap between technology and neurological education. After a thorough review of recent literature and assessing current trends, the authors propose that contemporary medical education must adhere to the following tenets: Hybrid, Mobile, Mixed-reality, Open Access, Collaborative, Peer-reviewed, Intelligent, Game-based, and Global. We identify and align education objectives with the needs of future digital neurologists. The authors also discuss real-world advances that are aligned to serve the next generation of patients and providers.

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.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols

BACKGROUND

With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/9kj7r/.

The role of case studies in recent paleopathological literature: An argument for continuing relevance

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the role that case studies play in recent paleopathological literature, by evaluating their frequency of publication, academic impact, and the public engagement they generate.

MATERIALS

Articles published in International Journal of Paleopathology between 2011 and 2018 (N = 377).

METHODS

Articles were coded as case studies, population studies, methodological studies, or reviews. Case studies were coded as cultural practices, differential diagnosis, historical, or methodological/theoretical. We utilized bibliometric analysis to assess academic impact and altmetric analysis to evaluate public engagement.

RESULTS

Case studies continue to be the most frequently published, but least frequently cited, article type. There are no significant differences in public engagement data between article types. Methodological/theoretical case studies have the most academic impact. Differential diagnosis case studies have the least academic impact and generate the least public engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The case study genre includes a variety of approaches, some of which hold significant potential for contributing to the discipline of paleopathology and beyond.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study updates Mays' (2012b) citation analysis, pioneers the use of altmetric data to analyze public engagement with paleopathological publications, and identifies less productive approaches and areas of heightened relevance in the case study genre.

LIMITATIONS

Publications in only one journal were analyzed. Only one source was utilized for citation data (Google Scholar) and one source for altmetric data (PlumX).

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Expanding the granular analysis of case studies piloted here to additional journals and/or citation indexes to enlarge the sample size and provide keener insights.

Using open access publications to support your professional development

As members of the Institute of Medical Illustrators (IMI), we have access to the Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine when we log into the website but many other resources that might be useful for our learning and continuing professional development (CPD) are not as readily available and may be behind pay walls. We cannot become a member of every organisation and health regions may allow access to some but not all journals. Open access means that some books, articles and journals can be accessed by anyone, rather than having to have a subscription to access them. The aim of this article is to look at some of the benefits of open access for the CPD of medical illustrators including where open access resources can be found to support personal and professional development.

The green, gold grass of home: Introducing open access in universities in Norway

In this paper, we investigate how open access is reflected and implemented in all Norwegian universities and how they responded to national policy developments for open access in the period 2009–2021. We analyse how the universities adapted arguments for the three core missions of the universities–research, education, and societal impact–when they reacted to increasing pressures to facilitate open access. Our analysis is based on 182 institutional strategy documents, open access policies and annual reports. When considering the profile of the institutional policies and the explicit referrals to national policies, we find there is a great deal of homogeneity between Norwegian universities, and they are mostly aligned with national policy. Open access is connected to the third mission in all university strategies, but often in a very general manner and without documenting benefits for non-academic users. We find limited emphasis on open access as advantageous for education. All universities show commitment to open access, and several can be described as proactive as they tie it to different types of local incentives. Development over time suggests more mature and institutionalised polices that do not challenge what we may call the academic heartland and its core value of academic freedom, including where and how to publish. We propose a framework for analysing similar institutionalisation processes with three main dimensions: mimesis, adaptation/integration with existing practices, and maturation/commitment.

Seven steps to enhance Open Science practices in animal science

The Open Science movement aims at ensuring accessibility, reproducibility, and transparency of research. The adoption of Open Science practices in animal science, however, is still at an early stage. To move ahead as a field, we here provide seven practical steps to embrace Open Science in animal science. We hope that this paper contributes to the shift in research practices of animal scientists towards open, reproducible, and transparent science, enabling the field to gain additional public trust and deal with future challenges to guarantee reliable research. Although the paper targets primarily animal science researchers, the steps discussed here are also applicable to other research domains.

Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science–policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science–policy interface that leaves key terms (“impact”, “uptake”) undefined. We show that this understanding—based upon linear models of research uptake—likewise grounds the influential “evidence–policy gap” diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science–policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence–policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence–policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.