Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis

BACKGROUND

The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.

METHODS

A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.

RESULTS

Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Health Sciences Faculty Towards Scholarly Open Access and Predatory Publishing

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically.

Neuro-ophthalmology output in high-impact clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the neuro-ophthalmology publishing trends of the top general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals and to report (i) the proportion of articles that are neuro-ophthalmology focused and (ii) the correlation between annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmology-focused articles and annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmologist journal editors.

DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

MATERIALS

Articles in the top 5 general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals.

METHODS

Publications from 2012 through 2021 were retrieved from Embase and classified as teaching or nonteaching articles based on journal indexing. Duplicate screening was conducted to further categorize articles as either focused or not focused on neuro-ophthalmology.

RESULTS

The titles, abstracts, and (or) full texts of 34,660 articles were reviewed. The total proportions of nonteaching articles and teaching articles focused on neuro-ophthalmology were 3.4% and 13.8%, respectively. Neuro-ophthalmology contributions to nonteaching and teaching publications were greater among the ophthalmology journals (4.0% and 15.2%) than among the neurology journals (2.6% and 13.3%). There were no clear trends in the annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmology-focused articles across the 10-year period. The annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmologist journal editors was positively correlated with annual neuro-ophthalmology output for teaching articles (Pearson's r = 0.541; p < 0.001) but not articles unrelated to teaching (Pearson's r = 0.067; p = 0.598).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that there was a lower prevalence of neuro-ophthalmology papers in high-impact-factor general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals over the last 10 years. It is important to have good representation of neuro-ophthalmology studies in such journals to promote best neuro-ophthalmic practices among all clinicians.

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct

CONTEXT

This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine.

METHODS

To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions.

RESULTS

Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.

A Nationwide Evaluation of Cardiothoracic Resident Research Productivity

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the research productivity of cardiothoracic surgery residents during their training and early career is crucial for tracking their academic development. To this end, the training pathway of residents and the characteristics of their program in relation to their productivity were evaluated.

METHODS

Alumni lists from integrated 6-year thoracic surgery (I-6) and traditional thoracic surgery residency programs were collected. A Python script was used to search PubMed for publications and the iCite database for citations from each trainee. Publications during a 20-year time span were stratified by the year of publication in relation to the trainee's graduation from thoracic surgery residency. Trainees were analyzed by training program type, institutional availability of a cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grant, and protected academic development time.

RESULTS

A total of 741 cardiothoracic surgery graduates (I-6, 70; traditional, 671) spanning 1971 to 2021 from 57 programs published >23,000 manuscripts. I-6 trainees published significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with traditional trainees. Trainees at institutions with cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grants published significantly more manuscripts than those at non-T32 institutions (13 vs 9; P = .0048). I-6 trainees published more manuscripts at programs with dedicated academic development time compared with trainees at programs without protected time (22 vs 9; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

I-6 trainees publish significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with their traditional colleagues. Trainees at institutions with T32 training grants and dedicated academic development time publish a higher number of manuscripts than trainees without those opportunities.

Bibliometric evaluation of Journal of Analytical Toxicology as a scholarly publication according to the Web-of-Science citation database

Soon approaching its 50th anniversary, Journal of Analytical Toxicology (JAT) is an international scholarly publication specializing in analytical and forensic aspects of toxicology. Science Citation Index (SCI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR), both of which are part of the Web-of-Science (WOS) database, were used to make a bibliometric evaluation of JAT articles. Between 1977 (volume 1) and 2023 (volume 47), a total of  n = 4,785 items were published in JAT; the top-ten most highly cited articles and the most prolific authors were identified. Changes in the journal impact factor (JIF) were studied between 1997 and 2022, and this metric varied from a low of 1.24 (2006) to a high of 3.36 (2020).The most recent JIF (2022) dropped to 2.5 and the corresponding 5 year JIF was 2.6. JAT's most highly cited article (590 cites) was a working group (SWGTOX) report dealing with standard practices for the validation of analytical methods in forensic toxicology laboratories. JAT published 62 articles each of which were cited over 100 times and the H-index for JAT was 89. The most prolific author of JAT articles was credited with 119 items, the first in 1980 (volume 4) and the latest in 2023 (volume 47). JAT articles were cited 4,537 times in 2022 by all journals in the JCR database, although 520 of these were self-citations (11.5%). Bibliometric methods are increasingly used to evaluate the published work of individual scientists, university departments, entire universities and whole countries. Highly cited articles are considered more influential and authoritative compared with papers that are seldom or never cited.

Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Academic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to 'predatory publishers'- groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base.

METHODS

A rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified.

RESULTS

After searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes- understanding, and utilisation- of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services.

CONCLUSION

There remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory publishers.

Career development in pragmatic clinical trials to improve care for people living with dementia

The growing number of people living with dementia (PLWD) requires a coordinated clinical response to deliver pragmatic, evidence-based interventions in frontline care settings. However, infrastructure to support such a response is lacking. Moreover, there are too few researchers conducting rigorous embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) to make the vision of high quality, widely accessible dementia care a reality. National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory seeks to improve the pipeline of early career researchers qualified to lead ePCTs by funding career development awards. Even with support from the Collaboratory, awardees face practical and methodological challenges to success, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We first describe the training opportunities and support network for the IMPACT CDA recipients. This report then describes the unique career development challenges faced by early-career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care. Topics addressed include challenges in establishing a laboratory, academic promotion, mentoring and professional development, and work-life balance. Concrete suggestions to address these challenges are offered for early-career investigators, their mentors, and their supporting institutions. While some of these challenges are faced by researchers in other fields, this report seeks to provide a roadmap for expanding the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory and initiating future efforts to recruit, train, and retain talented early-career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care.

Viewing research assessment, the academic reward system, and academic publishing through the power/knowledge lens of Foucault

The academic research assessment system, the academic reward system, and the academic publishing system are interrelated mechanisms that facilitate the scholarly production of knowledge. This article considers these systems using a Foucauldian lens to examine the power/knowledge relationships found within and through these systems. A brief description of the various systems is introduced followed by examples of instances where Foucault's power, knowledge, discourse, and power/knowledge concepts are useful to provide a broader understanding of the norms and rules associated with each system, how these systems form a network of power relationships that reinforce and shape one another.

Common content, delivery modes and outcome measures for faculty development programs in nursing and midwifery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Globally, there is a call for urgent investment in nursing and midwifery education as high-quality education leads to quality care provision. This call for investment includes a 'focus on faculty', that is, development of those who teach. However, challenges in the preparation and development of faculty have been identified and include lack of recognition of ongoing development, limited pathways for career progression, inadequate provision of, or access to, faculty development opportunities and a lack of research evaluating sustained impact of programs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to identify, synthesise and report on common program content, modes of delivery and evaluation processes of faculty development programs in nursing and/or midwifery.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and conducted in six health and/or education focussed databases. Peer-reviewed articles, published in English in the last decade and with a primary focus on nursing and/or midwifery faculty were included in the review. References lists of included studies were searched and a search to identify relevant grey literature was conducted. Using systematic review software, titles and abstracts were reviewed by two reviewers with a third reviewer used to resolve discrepancies. Data were extracted and recorded, key characteristics were mapped and content analysis used to synthesise, analyse and report findings.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included in the review and identified common content provided in nursing and midwifery faculty development programs. The predominant content was approaches for learning and teaching. Other common content was leadership, research and assessment practices. Modes for program delivery were most often a blend of online and face-to-face. Program evaluation was reliant on participants' self-reported measures of satisfaction and confidence and did not examine impact over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commonalities in program content primarily focussed on learning and teaching, but also included content linked to expected professional nursing and midwifery educator competencies such as leadership and research. However, a lack of content on the key faculty activity of curriculum design was noted and should be addressed in future program development. In addition, there was a lack of evaluation on the impact of different modes of delivery. Furthermore, an over-reliance on self-reported evaluation measures and a lack of longitudinal evaluation of impact on education practice and on student experience and outcomes. Future research should include evaluation of modes of delivery and impact on faculty practice over a sustained period.

Who are the most highly cited forensic scientists in the United States?

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career-long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence.

The disconnect between researcher ambitions and reality in achieving impact in the Earth & Environmental Sciences – author survey

Background: There is an increasing desire for research to provide solutions to the grand challenges facing our global society, such as those expressed in the UN SDGs (“real-world impact”). Herein, we undertook an author survey to understand how this desire influenced the choice of research topic, choice of journal, and preferred type of impact. Methods: We conducted a survey of authors who had published in >100 of our Earth & Environmental Science journals. The survey was sent to just under 60,000 authors and we received 2,695 responses (4% response rate).   Results: Respondents indicated that the majority of their research (74%) is currently concerned with addressing urgent global needs, whilst 90% of respondents indicated that their work either currently contributed to meeting real-world problems or that it would be a priority for them in the future; however, the impetus for this research focus seems to be altruistic researcher desire, rather than incentives or support from publishers, funders, or their institutions. Indeed, when contextualised within existing reward and incentive structures, respondents indicated that citations or downloads were more important to them than contributing to tackling real-world problems. Conclusions: At present, it seems that the laudable and necessary ambition of researchers in the Earth & Environmental Sciences to contribute to the tackling of real-world problems, such as those included in the UN SDGs, is seemingly being lost amidst the realities of being a researcher, owing to the prioritisation of other forms of impact, such as citations and downloads.

The pandemic and changes in early career researchers' career prospects, research and publishing practices

INTRODUCTION

As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking.

METHODS

An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.

RESULTS

The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.

CONCLUSION

Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

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.

Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?

In the field of organismal biology, as in much of academia, there is a strong incentive to publish in internationally recognized, highly regarded, English-language journals to promote career advancement. This expectation has created a linguistic hegemony in scientific publishing, whereby scholars for whom English is an additional language face additional barriers to achieving the same scientific recognition as scholars who speak English as a first language. Here, we surveyed the author guidelines of 230 journals in organismal biology with impact factors of 1.5 or greater for linguistically inclusive and equitable practices and policies. We looked for efforts that reflect first steps toward reducing barriers to publication for authors globally, including the presence of statements that encouraged submissions from authors of diverse nationalities and backgrounds, policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, whether translation and editing resources or services are available, allowance for non-English abstracts, summaries, or translations, and whether journals offer license options that would permit authors (or other scholars) to translate their work and publish it elsewhere. We also directly contacted a subset of journals to verify whether the information on their author guidelines page accurately reflects their policies and the accommodations they would make. We reveal that journals and publishers have made little progress toward beginning to recognize or reduce language barriers. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Many policies lacked transparency and clarity, which can generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both prospective authors and journal editors. We highlight examples of equitable policies and summarize actions that journals can take to begin to alleviate barriers to scientific publishing.

Academic Productivity of Early Career Transfusion Medicine Specialists: A Workforce Study

Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BB/TM) specialists oversee all aspects of blood component transfusions and are often involved with apheresis, coagulation, and cellular therapy services as well. This study characterizes the BB/TM workforce to determine the scholarly productivity in the first 3 to 5 years after obtaining board certification and the impact of job type, job location, and academic rank on scholarly productivity. Academic productivity was assessed among individuals passing the American Board of Pathology BB/TM board exam between 2016 and 2018 using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, iCite. One hundred and 28 BB/TM specialists were included in the analysis. The majority of BB/TM specialists work in academia, are located in the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic regions, and have a rank of Assistant Professor. Since passing the board exam, 76.5% (98/128) of BB/TM specialists have published papers, with 4.0 (IQR = 1-8) total number of published papers per individual, and 791 total papers amongst the group. The median publications per individual per year since passing boards is 0.9 (IQR = 0.2-2.3) the number of publications per year since passing boards for BB/TM specialists in academia is significantly higher compared to other jobs at 1.33 (IQR, 0.5-2.89, Kruskal-Wallis P = .03) per individual Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (1.3, IQR= 0.4-2.7 and 1.4, IQR = 0.6-3.3, Mann-Whitney test P > .99). BB/TM specialists who passed the board exam between 2016 and 2018 are highly academically productive, especially those working in academia where publications are necessary for promotion. BB/TM physicians are an extensively trained and academically-minded group of practitioners.

Jot: guiding journal selection with suitability metrics

Researchers grapple with a challenging and consequential decision each time they choose a journal for manuscript submission. There are several online tools that attempt to identify appropriate journals for a manuscript, but each of these tools has shortcomings in terms of the journal data they provide and the exploration functionality they offer-and not one of these tools is open source. Jot is a free and open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript's title, abstract, and (optionally) citations. Jot gathers a wealth of data on journal quality, impact, fit, and open access options that can be explored through a dashboard of linked, interactive visualizations.

Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility

Research must be well designed, properly conducted and clearly and transparently reported. Our independent medical research institute wanted a simple, generic tool to assess the quality of the research conducted by its researchers, with the goal of identifying areas that could be improved through targeted educational activities. Unfortunately, none was available, thus we devised our own. Here, we report development of the Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA), and its application to publications from our institute's scientists. Following consensus meetings and external review by statistical and methodological experts, 11 items were selected for the final version of the QuOCCA: research transparency (items 1-3), research design and analysis (items 4-6) and research reporting practices (items 7-11). Five pairs of raters assessed all 231 articles published in 2017 and 221 in 2018 by researchers at our institute. Overall, the results were similar between years and revealed limited engagement with several recommended practices highlighted in the QuOCCA. These results will be useful to guide educational initiatives and their effectiveness. The QuOCCA is brief and focuses on broadly applicable and relevant concepts to open, high-quality, reproducible and well-reported science. Thus, the QuOCCA could be used by other biomedical institutions and individual researchers to evaluate research publications, assess changes in research practice over time and guide the discussion about high-quality, open science. Given its generic nature, the QuOCCA may also be useful in other research disciplines.

The disconnect between researcher ambitions and reality in achieving impact in the Earth & Environmental Sciences – author survey

Background: There is an increasing desire for research to provide solutions to the grand challenges facing our global society, such as those expressed in the UN SDGs (“real-world impact”). Herein, we undertook an author survey to understand how this desire influenced the choice of research topic, choice of journal, and preferred type of impact. Methods: We conducted a survey of authors who had published in >100 of our Earth & Environmental Science journals. The survey was sent to just under 60,000 authors and we received 2,695 responses (4% response rate).   Results: Respondents indicated that the majority of their research (74%) is currently concerned with addressing urgent global needs, whilst 90% of respondents indicated that their work either currently contributed to meeting real-world problems or that it would be a priority for them in the future; however, the impetus for this research focus seems to be altruistic researcher desire, rather than incentives or support from publishers, funders, or their institutions. Indeed, when contextualised within existing reward and incentive structures, respondents indicated that citations or downloads were more important to them than contributing to tackling real-world problems. Conclusions: At present, it seems that the laudable and necessary ambition of researchers in the Earth & Environmental Sciences to contribute to the tackling of real-world problems, such as those included in the UN SDGs, is seemingly being lost amidst the realities of being a researcher, owing to the prioritisation of other forms of impact, such as citations and downloads.

Positive but not negative affect is associated with increased daily drinking likelihood in non-clinical populations: systematic review and meta-analyses

Background: Recent meta-analytical findings indicate that affect regulation plays an important role in alcohol craving, consumption volume, and substance use. However, in view of mixed findings, the affect and drinking likelihood literature remains in need of clarification and consolidation.Objectives: This systematic review with meta-analyses interrogated the results from peer-reviewed studies among non-clinical populations that examined the relationship between daily affective states and intraday likelihood of alcohol consumption.Method: A PRISMA guided search of PsychINFO, PsycARTICLES, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, PubMed, SCOPUS, and JSTOR databases was conducted. Multilevel meta-analyses yielded 11 eligible negative affect studies (2751 participants, 23 effect sizes) and nine studies on positive affect (2244 participants, 14 effect sizes).Results: The pooled associations between intra-day affect and alcohol consumption likelihood revealed no significant association between negative affective state and drinking likelihood (OR = .90, 95% CI [.73, 1.12]) and that positive affect was associated with increased drinking likelihood (OR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09, 1.27]). Egger's test, P-curve, fail-safe N, and selection models analyses suggested that the obtained results were unlikely to be the product of publication bias and p-hacking alone.Conclusions: Results converge to suggest that, independent of age, affect measure used, and study design, a significant albeit modest relationship between positive affect and alcohol consumption likelihood exists, which does not appear to be the case for negative affect. In conjunction with other recent meta-analyses, current findings help map out a more nuanced understanding of the affect-alcohol/substance use relationship, with potential implications for interventions.

Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The faculty promotion system is expected to benefit the faculty, institute, and profession and lead to the sustainable and comprehensive development. This present systematic review aims to investigate the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran.

METHOD

This study was a systematic review conducted by searching in PubMed, Scopus, Eric, Web of Science, Cochrane, SID, Magiran, and https://irandoc.ac.ir/line with Persian and English terms in the period from 2015 to 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by reviewers.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included. Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members were reviewed and grouped into five main categories: 1. The general regulations for the promotion of faculty members, 2. Cultural, disciplinary, and social activities, 3. Educational activities, 4. Research-technology activities, and 5. Scientific-executive activities.

CONCLUSION

Despite several modifications to regulations for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran, this process still encounters challenges because of its complex nature. This article provides tips to policymakers on regulations of promotion for educational activities.

Ask the Editors: Assessing the Publishing Needs of Faculty Editors

Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices.&nbsp;Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes at universities typically assess candidates along three dimensions: research, teaching, and service. In recent years, some have argued for the inclusion of a controversial fourth criterion: collegiality. While collegiality plays a role in the morale and effectiveness of academic departments, it is amorphic and difficult to assess, and could be misused to stifle dissent or enforce homogeneity. Despite this, some institutions have opted to include this additional element in their RPT documents and processes, but it is unknown the extent of this practice and how it varies across institution type and disciplinary units. This study is based on two sets of data: survey data collected as part of a project that explored the publishing decisions of faculty and how these related to perceived importance in RPT processes, and 864 RPT documents collected from 129 universities from the United States and Canada. We analysed these RPT documents to determine the degree to which collegiality and related terms are mentioned, if they are defined, and if and how they may be assessed during the RPT process. Results show that when collegiality and related terms appear in these documents they are most often just briefly mentioned. It is less common for collegiality and related terms to be defined or assessed in RPT documents. Although the terms are mentioned across all types of institutions, there is a statistically significant difference in how prevalent they are at each. Collegiality is more commonly mentioned in the documents of doctoral research-focused universities (60%), than of master’s universities and colleges (31%) or baccalaureate colleges (15%). Results from the accompanying survey of faculty also support this finding: individuals from R-Types were more likely to perceive collegiality to be a factor in their RPT processes. We conclude that collegiality likely plays an important role in RPT processes, whether it is explicitly acknowledged in policies and guidelines or not, and point to several strategies in how it might be best incorporated in the assessment of academic careers.

Exploring the Attitudes and Perceptions of Master of Medical Education Graduates Towards Research Publication in Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Evidence is lacking to identify what encourages students to conduct research and publish. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of research and publications from Master of Medical Education student research projects as 15-20% have published their research while 75-80% did not.

Methods

This study used qualitative in-depth interviews with 17 graduates from the previous 13 batches of the Master of Medical Education program, Saudi Arabia. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants by face to face and Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were conducted in English, and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. Next, the interview text was read multiple times to familiarize with the data for thematic analysis, where the text was coded inductively. Themes were generated by identifying patterns in the data and merging similar codes. The data were interpreted within the themes and supported with the most relevant quotations.

Results

We identified four distinct but interrelated themes and the first theme, the importance and advantages of conducting research and its publication, explains the participants need to conduct research and publish it to survive and progress in the academic environment. In the second theme, positive experiences of conducting research and its publication, we identify what participants' positive experiences of the research process entail. In the third theme, challenges to conducting research and its publication, we explore the participants' opinions on the barriers to their efforts to undertake and publish their research. In the last theme, facilitators for conducting research and its publication, we summarize various facilitating factors that participants described as necessary to complete the research process successfully to peer-reviewed publication.

Conclusion

Masters' student researchers, especially those with demanding projects, need to be supported by providing them with critical supervision, an enabling environment, technical support, and guidance at each step of the research process.

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of 'cumulative advantage'. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: 'What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?' Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as 'reproducibility' becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current hiring practices of academic institutions around the world, with regard to the mention of advertisements for Open Science (OS) in research based, faculty and postdoctoral positions.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study, using 189 global institutions from the Center for Science and Technology (CSTS) Leiden ranking of world universities of 2017, including the U15 Group (Canadian Research-Intensive Universities), and five self-selected supplementary institutions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure for our study is the level of OS in job advertisements, assessed using the Modified Open Science Modular Scheme (MOMS).

RESULTS

After assessing 305 job advertisements for academic positions in 91 institutions, only 2 (0.6%) had any explicit mention of OS in their job advertisements on the MOMS. The sample assessed the level of open science for 39.0% Associate/Assistant professor positions, 30.8% Researcher/Postdoctoral fellow positions, and 18.7% of Tenured positions. The remaining 11.5% were for positions such as lectureship, research associate, chair, dean, director and other.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the need for increased recognition of OS as a characteristic in research-active job advertisements. As evident in the alarmingly low percentage of job advertisements that mentioned OS (0.6%), the movement towards enhanced OS profiles across academic institutions is highly encouraged. This can be achieved through increased recognition of OS in research job advertisements and demonstrating the means in which institutions promote OS such as, encouraging preprints, publishing in open access journals, and the importance of data sharing.

How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals

Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.

Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan

The quality and quantity of papers published in journals play a crucial role in achieving an academic promotion in medical schools. Reports on the criteria for promotion and their impact on different specialties, especially on primary health care, which has low research output, are rare. We investigated the scoring systems generally adopted for academic promotion at most medical schools in Taiwan. The weighted scores were derived from the multiplication of weights from categories of paper, journal impact factor, or ranking in a certain category by impact factor, and author order. To determine the thresholds of papers required for different levels of promotion, we took papers in the highest- or lowest-ranked journals in the primary health care category in 2019 Journal Citation Reports as examples. Considering publications in the highest-ranked journals, a median of 4.6 first or corresponding author papers were required for a professorship, as well as 3.3 for an associate professorship, and 2.5 for an assistant professorship. In contrast, a median of 30, 20, and 13.5 papers in the lowest-ranked journals was required for the corresponding positions. Thus, academic promotions for primary health care educators in Taiwan are highly demanding. The detrimental effects of scoring systems deserve further research.

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as "predatory". Simply referring to them as "potentially predatory" or "borderline predatory" also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Mapping open knowledge institutions: an exploratory analysis of Australian universities

While the movement for open research has gained momentum in recent years, there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination. Increasingly, universities are under pressure to transform themselves to engage with the wider community and to be more inclusive. Open knowledge institutions (OKIs) provide a framework that encourages universities to act with the principles of openness at their centre; not only should universities embrace digital open access (OA), but also lead actions in cultivating diversity, equity, transparency and positive changes in society. This leads to questions of whether we can evaluate the progress of OKIs and what are potential indicators for OKIs. As an exploratory study, this article reports on the collection and analysis of a list of potential OKI indicators. Data for these indicators are gathered for 43 Australian universities. The indicators provide high-dimensional and complex signals about university performances. They show evidence of large disparities in characteristics such as Indigenous employment and gender equity, and a preference for repository-mediated OA across Australian universities. We demonstrate use of the OKI evaluation framework to categorise these indicators into three platforms of diversity, communication and coordination. The analysis provides new insights into the Australian open knowledge landscape and ways of mapping different paths of OKIs.

Lifting the lid on impact and peer review

Brain and Neuroscience Advances has grown in tandem with the British Neuroscience Association’s campaign to build Credibility in Neuroscience, which encourages actions and initiatives aimed at improving reproducibility, reliability and openness. This commitment to credibility impacts not only what the Journal publishes, but also how it operates. With that in mind, the Editorial Board sought the views of the neuroscience community on the peer review process, and on how they should respond to the Journal Impact Factor that will be assigned to Brain and Neuroscience Advances. In this editorial, we present the results of a survey of neuroscience researchers conducted in the autumn of 2020 and discuss the broader implications of our findings for the Journal and the neuroscience community.

Open access journal publishing in the business disciplines: A closer look at the low uptake and discipline-specific considerations

The Internet has enabled efficient electronic publishing of scholarly journals and Open Access business models. Recent studies have shown that adoption of Open Access journals has been uneven across scholarly disciplines, where the business and economics disciplines in particular seem to lag behind all other fields of research. Through bibliometric analysis of journals indexed in Scopus, we find the share of articles in Open Access journals in business, management, and accounting to be only 6%. We further studied the Open Access availability of articles published during 2014–2019 in journals included in the Financial Times 50 journal list (19,969 articles in total). None of the journals are full Open Access, but 8% of the articles are individually open and for a further 35% earlier manuscript versions are available openly on the web. The results suggest that the low adoption rate of Open Access journals in the business fields is a side-effect of evaluation practices emphasizing publishing in journals included, in particular, ranking lists, creating disincentives for business model innovation, and barriers for new entrants among journals. Currently, most business school research has to be made Open Access through other ways than through full Open Access journals, and libraries play an important role in facilitating this in a sustainable way.

Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges

Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.

Tenure Expectations and Career Aspirations Among Female Assistant Professors in STEM

This study used social cognitive career theory to predict the career aspirations and tenure expectations of untenured female science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) assistant professors. We hypothesized that contextual variables (perceived career barriers and institutional support for work–life balance) would directly predict career aspirations and tenure expectations. We also expected that these contextual variables would be indirectly related to career aspirations and tenure expectations through our self-efficacy variables (faculty task-specific self-efficacy and impostor beliefs). Data were collected from 214 untenured female faculty in STEM departments. Path analyses indicated that the hypothesized model was a good fit for the data. Institutional support for work–life balance produced direct and indirect pathways to career aspirations through faculty task-specific self-efficacy and an indirect pathway to tenure expectations through impostor beliefs, whereas perceived career barriers produced a direct pathway to career aspirations. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Scientometric evaluation of highly cited scientists in the field of forensic science and legal medicine

A publically available database of the most highly cited scientists in all disciplines was used to identify people that belonged to the subject category “forensic science and legal medicine.” This bibliometric information was derived from Elsevier’s SCOPUS database containing eight million scientists with at least five articles as author or co-author. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists were identified and ranked according to six citation metrics; total number of citations, H-index, H-index adjusted for co-authorship, citations to single-authored papers, citations to single or first author papers and, citations to single, first, or last-authored papers. The eight million entries in the SCOPUS database were sub-divided into 22 main subject categories and 176 sub-categories, one of which was legal and forensic medicine. The citation databases were provided as supplementary material in two articles published in PLoS Biology in 2019 and 2020. Among the top 100,000 most highly cited scientists, there were only 30 allocated to the legal and forensic medicine category, according to the 2019 PLoS Biology article. The updated database from 2020 also included the names of people within the top-cited 2% of their scientific discipline. This increased the number of forensic practitioners to 215 from a total of 10,158 individuals in this subject category. This article takes a closer look at these highly cited forensic scientists, the countries where they work, the particular research field in which they publish, and their composite citation scores with and without self-citations. The top ten most cited individuals in both databases (2019 and 2020) were the same and these should therefore be considered an elite group among all forensic practitioners.

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

The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.

Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was published in 2013 and described how funding agencies, institutions, publishers, organizations that supply metrics, and individual researchers could better evaluate the outputs of scientific research. Since then DORA has evolved into an active initiative that gives practical advice to institutions on new ways to assess and evaluate research. This article outlines a framework for driving institutional change that was developed at a meeting convened by DORA and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The framework has four broad goals: understanding the obstacles to changes in the way research is assessed; experimenting with different approaches; creating a shared vision when revising existing policies and practices; and communicating that vision on campus and beyond.

A survey-based analysis of the academic job market

Many postdoctoral researchers apply for faculty positions knowing relatively little about the hiring process or what is needed to secure a job offer. To address this lack of knowledge about the hiring process we conducted a survey of applicants for faculty positions: the survey ran between May 2018 and May 2019, and received 317 responses. We analyzed the responses to explore the interplay between various scholarly metrics and hiring outcomes. We concluded that, above a certain threshold, the benchmarks traditionally used to measure research success - including funding, number of publications or journals published in - were unable to completely differentiate applicants with and without job offers. Respondents also reported that the hiring process was unnecessarily stressful, time-consuming, and lacking in feedback, irrespective of outcome. Our findings suggest that there is considerable scope to improve the transparency of the hiring process.