The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles

Barriers and Constraints in Scientific Manuscript Preparation Among Nephrologists: Insights From India

Introduction: Medical research shapes public health actions, emphasising the need for greater investments in health. Despite a surge in scientific publications, disparities exist in authorship from low-income countries and among female researchers. Addressing these gaps is vital for studying real-world health outcomes and promoting universal healthcare delivery. Methods: A descriptive quantitative study using an online questionnaire to gather data from Indian nephrologists and nephrology fellows was conducted by members of Women in Nephrology, India, from September 2023 to December 2023. The survey collected data on demographics, publication experience and challenges in scientific paper writing. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 25.0, with significance at p < 0.05. Results: The survey included 156 participants, with a mean age of 35.55 ± 8.91 years. The majority were males (55.8%) and practicing nephrologists (69.9%). Most respondents practiced in medical institutions (45.5%) and metropolitan cities (60.3%), with an average practice duration of 12.29 ± 9.12 years. Only 44.9% published their thesis work, and 52.6% preferred writing case reports. Key challenges included time constraints (82.1%), funding (67.9%), limited access to research articles (65.4%), lack of statistical analysis knowledge (64.7%) and limited access to research software (60.2%). Younger nephrologists faced more funding (68.9%) and knowledge-related barriers (74.4%). Discussion: Multiple challenges exist in scientific paper writing among Indian nephrologists, emphasising the need for targeted interventions. Funding for research, burnout and article processing charges are significant barriers. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing research output and improving healthcare outcomes in resource-limited countries.

Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals

OBJECTIVES

To compare the Article Processing Charges (APCs) and fee transparency between legitimate and potentially predatory urology journals.

METHODS

Potentially predatory journals were identified from unsolicited email solicitations sent to an academic urologist between December 2023 and January 2024. APC data were collected from the journals' websites and categorized based on fee transparency: no APC, non-transparent APCs, or transparent APCs. Legitimate journals were identified from the 69 urology journals listed in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons library. APCs for these journals were similarly collected and analyzed. We conducted a quantitative analysis with Chi-squared testing to compare categorical variables and a Mann-Whitney U-test to assess differences in APC values.

RESULTS

A total of 214 potentially predatory journals were identified from 422 emails, originating from 75 different publishers. Solicitations spanned various disciplines, with only 7.35% from urology journals. Among potentially predatory journals, 3.7% claimed to have no APCs, 21.5% lacked fee transparency, and 74.8% disclosed their APCs, with a mean charge of 2272.50 USD (median 2000 USD; range 150-3690 USD). In contrast, legitimate journals had a mean APC of $3244.51 USD (median 3490 USD; range 635-6950 USD), with 11.6% offering publication without APCs.

CONCLUSION

Academic urologists often face unsolicited invitations from predatory journals and encounter high APCs from legitimate journals. This dual challenge complicates researchers' decisions and can hinder access to reputable publication avenues. To alleviate this burden, institutions should consider financial support for researchers, and both publishers and researchers must prioritize transparency and caution in the open-access publishing landscape.

Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center

BACKGROUND

Research transparency is crucial for ensuring the relevance, integrity, and reliability of scientific findings. However, previous work indicates room for improvement across transparency practices. The primary objective of this study was to develop an extensible tool to provide individualized feedback and guidance for improved transparency across phases of a study. Our secondary objective was to assess the feasibility of implementing this tool to improve transparency in clinical trials.

METHODS

We developed study-level "report cards" that combine tailored feedback and guidance to investigators across several transparency practices, including prospective registration, availability of summary results, and open access publication. The report cards were generated through an automated pipeline for scalability. We also developed an infosheet to summarize relevant laws, guidelines, and resources relating to transparency. To assess the feasibility of using these tools to improve transparency, we conducted a single-arm intervention study at Berlin's university medical center, the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Investigators (n = 92) of 155 clinical trials were sent individualized report cards and the infosheet, and surveyed to assess their perceived usefulness. We also evaluated included trials for improvements in transparency following the intervention.

RESULTS

Survey responses indicated general appreciation for the report cards and infosheet, with a majority of participants finding them helpful to build awareness of the transparency of their trial and transparency requirements. However, improvement on transparency practices was minimal and largely limited to linking publications in registries. Investigators also commented on various challenges associated with implementing transparency, including a lack of clarity around best practices and institutional hurdles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the potential of developing and using tools, such as report cards, to provide individualized feedback at scale to investigators on the transparency of their study. While these tools were positively received by investigators, the limited improvement in transparency practices suggests that awareness alone is likely not sufficient to drive improvement. Future research and implementation efforts may adapt the tools to further practices or research areas, and explore integrated approaches that combine the report cards with incentives and institutional support to effectively strengthen transparency in research.

Understanding the Increases in Physical Activity Publications From 1985 to 2022: A Global Perspective

BACKGROUND

A marked increase in physical activity (PA) publications has occurred since 1985. Increased publications reflect a globalization of publications and increase the difficulty of reviewing evidence and identifying effective PA strategies.

METHODS

Review of Scopus database publications with the title or keyword "physical activity" between 1985 and 2022, examining 193,335 PA publications. The choice of search strategy was standardized across the period and maximized relevant PA papers (high sensitivity).

RESULTS

The results showed 3 clear periods for increases in PA publications; an initial increase in period 1 between 1985 and 2000, a 9-fold increase in period 2 between 2001 and 2016 (from 645/y to 5876/y), and a further increase to 15,812 publications per year in period 3 between 2017 and 2022. The primary driver of this increase was the transition from publications in traditional subscription-model journals to open-access business model journals, which comprised 80% of PA publications by period 3. Although this trend was global, some countries showed greater increases through open-access publication.

DISCUSSION

These data identify a relatively unrecognized and urgent threat to the field: An exponential increase in PA publications may influence the quality of published work and increases the difficulty of finding and applying important research findings. The shift in publication patterns is contributed to by higher acceptance rates and rapid time to publication offered in open-access journals. This represents a "commercial determinant" of publications in the PA field, influencing the type and volume of publications without consideration of their contribution to evidence or impact.

Evaluating a large language model's ability to answer clinicians' requests for evidence summaries

Objective

This study investigated the performance of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool using GPT-4 in answering clinical questions in comparison with medical librarians' gold-standard evidence syntheses.

Methods

Questions were extracted from an in-house database of clinical evidence requests previously answered by medical librarians. Questions with multiple parts were subdivided into individual topics. A standardized prompt was developed using the COSTAR framework. Librarians submitted each question into aiChat, an internally managed chat tool using GPT-4, and recorded the responses. The summaries generated by aiChat were evaluated on whether they contained the critical elements used in the established gold-standard summary of the librarian. A subset of questions was randomly selected for verification of references provided by aiChat.

Results

Of the 216 evaluated questions, aiChat's response was assessed as "correct" for 180 (83.3%) questions, "partially correct" for 35 (16.2%) questions, and "incorrect" for 1 (0.5%) question. No significant differences were observed in question ratings by question category (p=0.73). For a subset of 30% (n=66) of questions, 162 references were provided in the aiChat summaries, and 60 (37%) were confirmed as nonfabricated.

Conclusions

Overall, the performance of a generative AI tool was promising. However, many included references could not be independently verified, and attempts were not made to assess whether any additional concepts introduced by aiChat were factually accurate. Thus, we envision this being the first of a series of investigations designed to further our understanding of how current and future versions of generative AI can be used and integrated into medical librarians' workflow.

Evaluation of a context-aware chatbot using retrieval-augmented generation for answering clinical questions on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

The potential of large language models (LLMs) in medical applications is significant, and Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can address the weaknesses of these models in terms of data transparency and scientific accuracy by incorporating current scientific knowledge into responses. In this study, RAG and GPT-4 by OpenAI were applied to develop GuideGPT, a context aware chatbot integrated with a knowledge database from 449 scientific publications designed to provide answers on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). A comparison was made with a generic LLM ("PureGPT") across 30 MRONJ-related questions. Ten international experts in MRONJ evaluated the responses based on content, language, scientific explanation, and agreement using 5-point Likert scales. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test showed significantly better ratings for GuideGPT than PureGPT regarding content (p = 0.006), scientific explanation (p = 0.032), and agreement (p = 0.008), though not for language (p = 0.407). Thus, this study demonstrates RAG to be a promising tool to improve response quality and reliability of LLMs by incorporating domain-specific knowledge. This approach addresses the limitations of generic chatbots and can provide traceable and up-to-date responses essential for clinical practice.

Online search strategies utilized in feigning attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) while performing a continuous performance test (CPT)

BACKGROUND

The availability of information regarding neuropsychological tests threatens their confidentiality. This concern may be particularly relevant to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) considering its widespread online coverage. The present study explored simulators' online search strategies.

METHOD

Simulators (n = 39) searched for information before undergoing an evaluation which included performing a continuous performance test (CPT). Their search strategies were analyzed, and their performance was compared to that of ADHD patients (n = 36) and healthy controls (n = 38).

RESULTS

Most simulators reached high-risk websites that provided written and video-based information regarding the test. Sixty percent, comprised mostly of 3rd-year students, reached Google Scholar. These students were also easier to detect as simulators. Common strategies included performing the CPT in accordance with typical ADHD symptoms and avoiding the endorsement of both unusual and stereotypical symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Simulators can access online information that contains key test data. Higher education may increase the ability to reach academic research while decreasing the ability to convincingly feign impairment. While additional research is needed to examine coaching effects on neuropsychological testing, the risk to test security that many websites pose should be acknowledged and steps, including ones taken by test publishers, should be undertaken to minimize it.

Paying to publish: A cross-sectional analysis of article processing charges and journal characteristics among 87 pathology journals

Article processing charges are increasingly being levied on authors via publication fees to provide open access to readers. These charges may impose challenges to early career physicians seeking to publish research but pathology journal article processing charges have not been investigated to date. We aimed to quantify pathology journal article processing charges and investigate the potential associated factors. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of manuscript article processing charges among the 87 pathology journals in the "Pathology" category in Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate) and associated journal variables: publication model (open access vs hybrid), impact factor, year founded, journal location, journal publisher, medical society affiliation, whether the journal is published in print vs online, and subscription cost to institutions. Most (70.1 %, 61/87) journals were hybrid, while 29.9 % (26/87) were open access. Overall, the median cost to publish open access was significantly greater for hybrid journals compared with open access journals ($3710 vs $1735; P<0.0001). Article processing charges positively correlated with impact factor, journal publisher, and institutional journal subscription costs in bivariate analysis. In multivariable analysis, impact factor associated with higher charges, whereas open access journals, medical society affiliation, and location in a European country outside of the United Kingdom were associated with lower charges. There was no significant association between publication frequency, years since journal founding, or print and online publication. Understanding the potential fees that may impact pathologists attempting to publish in the biomedical literature as well as the options for covering these costs is crucial to ensure equitable career advancement opportunities.

Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course

The open science movement produces vast quantities of openly published data connected to journal articles, creating an enormous resource for educators to engage students in current topics and analyses. However, educators face challenges using these materials to meet course objectives. I present a case study using open science (published articles and corresponding datasets) and open educational practices in a capstone course. While engaging in current topics of conservation, students trace connections in the research process, learn statistical analyses, and recreate analyses using the programming language R. I assessed the presence of best practices in open articles and datasets, examined student selection in the open grading policy, surveyed students on their perceived learning gains, and conducted a thematic analysis on student reflections. First, articles and datasets met just over half of the assessed fairness practices, which increased with the publication date. There was a marginal difference in how assessment categories were weighted by students, with reflections highlighting appreciation for student agency. In course content, students reported the greatest learning gains in describing variables, while collaborative activities (e.g., interacting with peers and instructor) were the most effective support. The most effective tasks to facilitate these learning gains included coding exercises and team-led assignments. Autocoding of student reflections identified 16 themes, and positive sentiments were written nearly 4x more often than negative sentiments. Students positively reflected on their growth in statistical analyses, and negative sentiments focused on how limited prior experience with statistics and coding made them feel nervous. As a group, we encountered several challenges and opportunities in using open science materials. I present key recommendations, based on student experiences, for scientists to consider when publishing open data to provide additional educational benefits to the open science community.

Spin in dental publications: a scoping review

The aim of this review was to map the practice of spin in scientific publications in the dental field. After registering the review protocol (osf.io/kw5qv/), a search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey databases in June 2023. Any study that evaluated the presence of spin in dentistry was eligible. Data were independently extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. After removing duplicates, 4888 records were screened and 38 were selected for full-text review. Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria, all of which detected the presence of spin in the primary studies, with the prevalence of spin ranging from 30% to 86%. The most common types of spin assessed in systematic reviews were failure to mention adverse effects of interventions and to report the number of studies/patients contributing to the meta-analysis of main outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, there was a focus on statistically significant within-group and between-group comparisons for primary or secondary outcomes (in abstract results) and claiming equivalence/noninferiority/similarity for statistically nonsignificant results (in abstract conclusions). The practice of spin is widespread in dental scientific literature among different specialties, journals, and countries. Its impact, however, remains poorly investigated.

Open access transition in obstetrics and gynecology journals-The international impact

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of converting from subscription-based publishing to open access ("flipping") in three obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) journals.

METHODS

We compared original articles in three OBGYN journals during a matched subscription-based and open access publishing period. We analyzed citation metrics and country of authorship.

RESULTS

Overall, 1522 studies were included; of those, 869 (57.1%) were before flipping and 653 (42.9%) were after flipping. There was a decrease in publications by lower-middle income countries from 7.7% in subscription-based publishing to 1.8% in open access (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the proportion of articles from South Asia (2.5% vs 0.5%), North America (14.4% vs 9.4%), and the Middle East (7.4% vs 2.5%), and an increase in publications from East Asia and Pacific (17.4% vs 30.9%; P < 0.001). The relative citation ratio was higher in the open access period (median 1.65 vs 0.95, P < 0.001). The number of citations per year was higher in the open access period (median 3.0 vs 2.0, P < 0.001). There was an increase in the proportion of funded studies (from 40.2% to 47.8%; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Flipping to open access in OBGYN journals is associated with a citation advantage with major authorship changes, leading to inequity.

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.

Finding Medical Photographs of Patients Online: Randomized, Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Photographs from medical case reports published in academic journals have previously been found in online image search results. This means that patient photographs circulate beyond the original journal website and can be freely accessed online. While this raises ethical and legal concerns, no systematic study has documented how often this occurs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to provide systematic evidence that patient photographs from case reports published in medical journals appear in Google Images search results. Research questions included the following: (1) what percentage of patient medical photographs published in case reports were found in Google Images search results? (2) what was the relationship between open access publication status and image availability? and (3) did the odds of finding patient photographs on third-party websites differ between searches conducted in 2020 and 2022?

METHODS

The main outcome measure assessed whether at least 1 photograph from each case report was found on Google Images when using a structured search. Secondary outcome variables included the image source and the availability of images on third-party websites over time. The characteristics of medical images were described using summary statistics. The association between the source of full-text availability and image availability on Google Images was tested using logistic regressions. Finally, we examined the trend of finding patient photographs using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

From a random sample of 585 case reports indexed in PubMed, 186 contained patient photographs, for a total of 598 distinct images. For 142 (76.3%) out of 186 case reports, at least 1 photograph was found in Google Images search results. A total of 18.3% (110/598) of photographs included eye, face, or full body, including 10.9% (65/598) that could potentially identify the patient. The odds of finding an image from the case report online were higher if the full-text paper was available on ResearchGate (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% CI 2.71-31.02), PubMed Central (OR 7.90, 95% CI 2.33-26.77), or Google Scholar (OR 6.07, 95% CI 2.77-13.29) than if the full-text was available solely through an open access journal (OR 5.33, 95% CI 2.31-12.28). However, all factors contributed to an increased risk of locating patient images online. Compared with the search in 2020, patient photographs were less likely to be found on third-party websites based on the 2022 search results (OR 0.61, 95% Cl 0.43-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of medical photographs from case reports was found on Google Images, raising ethical concerns with policy and practice implications. Journal publishers and corporations such as Google are best positioned to develop an effective remedy. Until then, it is crucial that patients are adequately informed about the potential risks and benefits of providing consent for clinicians to publish their images in medical journals.

Machine learning assisted analysis of equivalent circuit usage in electrochemical impedance spectroscopy applications

Electrical equivalent circuits are a widely applied tool with which electrical processes can be rationalized. There is a wide-ranging selection of fields from bioelectrochemistry to batteries to fuel cells making use of this tool. Enabling meta-analysis on the similarities and differences in the used circuits will help to identify commonly used circuits and aid in evaluating the underlying physics. We present a method and an implementation that enables the conversion of circuits included in scientific publications into a machine-readable form for generating machine learning datasets or circuit simulations.

Bibliometric insights into drug resistance in bladder cancer: Two decades of progress (1999-2022)

Aims

To provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of drug resistance in bladder cancer (BC) from 1999 to 2022, aiming to illuminate its historical progression and guide future investigative avenues.

Methods

Literature on BC drug resistance between 1999 and 2022 was sourced from the Web of Science. Visual analyses were executed using Vosviewer and Citespace software, focusing on contributions by countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords.

Results

From 2727 publications, a marked growth in BC drug resistance studies was discerned over the two decades. Prominent among all institutions is the University of Texas System. The majority of top-ranked journals were American. In authorship significance, McConkey DJ led in publications, while Bellmunt J dominated in citations. Research topics predominantly spanned cancer demographics, drug efficacy evaluations, molecular features, oncology subtypes, and individualized treatment strategies, with a notable contemporary emphasis on molecular mechanisms behind drug resistance and nuances of ICIs.

Conclusions

Our bibliometric analysis charts the landscape of BC drug resistance research from 1999 to 2022. While the study of resistance mechanisms has been robust, there's an evident need for deeper exploration into the molecular intricacies and the potential of ICIs and targeted therapeutic strategies.

The Role of Scientific Research in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Discussions on Twitter: Social Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Attitudes toward the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and accuracy of information shared about this topic in web-based settings vary widely. As real-time, global exposure to web-based discourse about HPV immunization shapes the attitudes of people toward vaccination, the spread of misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific knowledge contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to better understand the type and quality of scientific research shared on Twitter (recently rebranded as X) by vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-confident communities.

METHODS

To analyze the use of scientific research on social media, we collected tweets and retweets using a list of keywords associated with HPV and HPV vaccines using the Academic Research Product Track application programming interface from January 2019 to May 2021. From this data set, we identified tweets referring to or sharing scientific literature through a Boolean search for any tweets with embedded links, hashtags, or keywords associated with scientific papers. First, we used social network analysis to build a retweet or reply network to identify the clusters of users belonging to either the vaccine-confident or vaccine-hesitant communities. Second, we thematically assessed all shared papers based on typology of evidence. Finally, we compared the quality of research evidence and bibliometrics between the shared papers in the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities.

RESULTS

We extracted 250 unique scientific papers (including peer-reviewed papers, preprints, and gray literature) from approximately 1 million English-language tweets. Social network maps were generated for the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities sharing scientific research on Twitter. Vaccine-hesitant communities share fewer scientific papers; yet, these are more broadly disseminated despite being published in less prestigious journals compared to those shared by the vaccine-confident community.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine-hesitant communities have adopted communication tools traditionally wielded by health promotion communities. Vaccine-confident communities would benefit from a more cohesive communication strategy to communicate their messages more widely and effectively.

Evaluating a Large Language Model's Ability to Answer Clinicians' Requests for Evidence Summaries

Objective

This study investigated the performance of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool using GPT-4 in answering clinical questions in comparison with medical librarians' gold-standard evidence syntheses.

Methods

Questions were extracted from an in-house database of clinical evidence requests previously answered by medical librarians. Questions with multiple parts were subdivided into individual topics. A standardized prompt was developed using the COSTAR framework. Librarians submitted each question into aiChat, an internally-managed chat tool using GPT-4, and recorded the responses. The summaries generated by aiChat were evaluated on whether they contained the critical elements used in the established gold-standard summary of the librarian. A subset of questions was randomly selected for verification of references provided by aiChat.

Results

Of the 216 evaluated questions, aiChat's response was assessed as "correct" for 180 (83.3%) questions, "partially correct" for 35 (16.2%) questions, and "incorrect" for 1 (0.5%) question. No significant differences were observed in question ratings by question category (p=0.39). For a subset of 30% (n=66) of questions, 162 references were provided in the aiChat summaries, and 60 (37%) were confirmed as nonfabricated.

Conclusions

Overall, the performance of a generative AI tool was promising. However, many included references could not be independently verified, and attempts were not made to assess whether any additional concepts introduced by aiChat were factually accurate. Thus, we envision this being the first of a series of investigations designed to further our understanding of how current and future versions of generative AI can be used and integrated into medical librarians' workflow.

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.

Medical magnetic resonance imaging publications in Arab countries: A 25-year bibliometric analysis

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly becoming a cornerstone in modern diagnostic healthcare, offering unparalleled capabilities in stroke, dementia, and cancer screening. Therefore, this study aims to map medical MRI literature affiliated with Arab countries, focusing on publication trends, top journals, author affiliations, study countries, and authors' collaboration, and keyword analysis. The scientific database used is the Scopus database. Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer software, and Biblioshiny for the Bibliometrix R package are the bibliometric tools used in this analysis. A total of 2592 publications were published between 1988 and 2022, with total citations of 22,115. Most of them were original articles (91,7%) and 89.9% were published in traditional journals. The number of total publications exhibited a steady increase over time, whereas total citations showed fluctuations, peaking in 2015 with 1571 citations for publications from that year. The most cited article was authored by Yaseen M. Arabi, receiving 286 citations. Saudi Arabia was the top active country. In addition, the most prolific author was Maha S Zaki, and the most prolific source was the "Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine". The most prolific affiliation was Cairo University. The "multiple sclerosis" and "case report" were the most trending keywords. The analysis revealed a significant growth in MRI research inside Arab countries, as shown by an increase in the total number of publications and international collaborations. Despite these developments, the results of this study suggest that there is still room for MRI research in the Arab region to advance. This can be achieved through increasing international collaboration and multidisciplinary work.

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.

Autistic Adults' Priorities for Future Autism Employment Research: Perspectives from the United Kingdom

Background

A growing body of research has sought to understand autistic people's research priorities. Several of these studies have identified employment as a key research priority. Yet, there have been a few attempts to identify specific, actionable priorities within this area.

Methods

Using an online survey, we asked 197 autistic people in the United Kingdom about their priorities for future autism-employment research.

Results

Participants spoke of their challenges in gaining and sustaining meaningful employment and called for researchers to conduct research that results in direct improvements to employment experiences. Regarding their research priorities, participants indicated a need for research covering all aspects of the employment lifecycle from accessing employment to transitioning out of employment. Importantly, participants also discussed how such research should be conducted: with autistic people as co-researchers and ensuring a diverse range of autistic people are listened to.

Conclusion

While much existing autism-employment research appears to align with the priorities outlined in this study, seemingly minimal attention has been paid to later stages of the work lifecycle (e.g., progressing into more senior job roles or transitioning out of work). By identifying disparities between autistic people's priorities and the research being conducted, we can support autistic people to drive the research agenda and ensure autism-employment research positively impacts the community it aims to serve.

Converting to Open Access in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journal: A Bibliometric Analysis

For various reasons, journals may convert from subscription-based to open-access (OA) publishing models, commonly referred to as flipping. In 2022, the Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica flipped to OA. We performed a bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in this journal during and after the flipping period. A total of 898 research articles were included. In the period after flipping to OA, there were more publications by authors in various countries, including from China (7.2% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.001). Accordingly, the flip to OA in a leading obstetrics and gynaecology journal seemed to impact the authorship locale.

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.

Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges

Harnessing science-based policy is key to addressing global challenges like the biodiversity and climate crises. Open research principles underpin effective science-based policy, but the uptake of these principles is likely constrained by the politicisation, commoditisation and conflicting motives of stakeholders in the research landscape. Here, using the mission and vision statements from 129 stakeholders from across the research landscape, we explore alignment in open research principles between stakeholders. We find poor alignment between stakeholders, largely focussed around journals, societies and funders, all of which have low open research language-use. We argue that this poor alignment stifles knowledge flow within the research landscape, ultimately limiting the mobilisation of impactful science-based policy. We offer recommendations on how the research landscape could embrace open research principles to accelerate societies' ability to solve global challenges.

Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

A bibliometric analysis of the research outcome of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum 2019-2023

Using two databases, this bibliometric analysis was done for the papers published by the Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum (FMUK), from 2019 to 2023. Data were extracted from SCImago for all Sudan, and from PubMed for the publications by FMUK and its associated research centres, the Institute of Endemic Diseases, and the Mycetoma Research Center. The analysis of publications included the count and type of publications, the journals, and national and international collaboration assessment. The publications from FMUK show improvement over time in number and quality, a growth that is significantly influenced by national and international collaboration. These partnerships have proven to be a key driver of FMUK's research output, together with the valuable contributions of the specialized research institutions. However, there is room for improvement in the research output by increasing institutional capacity to support research and scientific communication. The Sudanese Journal of Paediatrics is an example where open access has a positive impact by allowing peripheral journals to be established despite the constraints.

Wearable biosensors for human health: A bibliometric analysis from 2007 to 2022

Objective

This study aimed to determine the status of scientific production on biosensor usage for human health monitoring.

Methods

We used bibliometrics based on the data and metadata retrieved from the Web of Science between 2007 and 2022. Articles unrelated to health and medicine were excluded. The databases were processed using the VOSviewer software and auxiliary spreadsheets. Data extraction yielded 275 articles published in 161 journals, mainly concentrated on 13 journals and 881 keywords plus.

Results

The keywords plus of high occurrences were estimated at 27, with seven to 30 occurrences. From the 1595 identified authors, 125 were consistently connected in the coauthorship network in the total set and were grouped into nine clusters. Using Lotka's law, we identified 24 prolific authors, and Hirsch index analysis revealed that 45 articles were cited more than 45 times. Crosses were identified between 17 articles in the Hirsch index and 17 prolific authors, highlighting the presence of a large set of prolific authors from various interconnected clusters, a triad, and a solitary prolific author.

Conclusion

An exponential trend was observed in biosensor research for health monitoring, identifying areas of innovation, collaboration, and technological challenges that can guide future research on this topic.

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices.

RESULTS

We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.

A Review and Assessment of Open Access Surgery Journals

INTRODUCTION

Open access publishing has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the quality of open access journals and their ability to reach target audiences. This study reviews and characterizes open access surgical journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The directory of open access journals was used to search for open access surgical journals. PubMed indexing status, impact factor, article processing charge (APC), initial year of open access publishing, average weeks from manuscript submission to publication, publisher, and peer-review processes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety-two open access surgical journals were identified. Most (n = 49, 53.3%) were indexed in PubMed. Journals established >10 y were more likely to be indexed in PubMed compared to journals established <5 y (28 of 41 [68.3%] versus 4 of 20 [20%], P < 0.001). 44 journals (47.8%) used a double-blind review method. 49 (53.2%) journals received an impact factor for 2021, ranging from <0.1 to 10.2 (median 1.4). The median APC was $362 United States dollar [interquartile range $0 - 1802 United States dollar]. 35 journals (38%) did not charge a processing fee. There was a significant positive correlation between the APC and impact factor (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). If accepted, the median time from manuscript submission to publication was 12 wk.

CONCLUSIONS

Open access surgical journals are largely indexed on PubMed, have transparent review processes, employ variable APCs (including no publication fees), and proceed efficiently from submission to publication. These results should increase readers' confidence in the quality of surgical literature published in open access journals.

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.

Probiotics Modulate Host Immune Response and Interact with the Gut Microbiota: Shaping Their Composition and Mediating Antibiotic Resistance

The consortium of microbes inhabiting the human body, together with their encoded genes and secreted metabolites, is referred to as the "human microbiome." Several studies have established a link between the composition of the microbiome and its impact on human health. This impact spans local gastrointestinal inflammation to systemic autoimmune disorders and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Autism. Some of these links have been validated by rigorous experiments that identify specific strains as mediators or drivers of a particular condition. Consequently, the development of probiotics to compensate for a missing beneficial microbe(s) has advanced and become popular, especially in the treatment of irritable bowel diseases and to restore disrupted gut flora after antibiotic administration. The widespread use of probiotics is often advocated as a natural ecological therapy. However, this perception is not always accurate, as there is a potential for unexpected interactions when administering live microbial cultures. Here, we designed this research to explore the intricate interactions among probiotics, the host, and microbes through a series of experiments. Our objectives included assessing their immunomodulatory effects, response to oral medications, impact on microbial population dynamics, and mediation of antibiotic resistance. To achieve these goals, we employed diverse experimental protocols, including cell-based enzyme -linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), antibiotic susceptibility testing, antimicrobial activity assays, computational prediction of probiotic genes responsible for antibiotic resistance, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based validation of predicted genes, and survival assays of probiotics in the presence of selected oral medications. Our findings highlight that more than half of the tested probiotics trigger an inflammatory response in the Caco-2 cell line, are influenced by oral medications, exhibit antibacterial activity, and possess genes encoding antimicrobial resistance. These results underscore the necessity for a reevaluation of probiotic usage and emphasize the importance of establishing regulations to govern probiotic testing, approval, and administration.

Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society

Effective research impact development is essential to address global challenges. This commentary highlights key issues facing research impact development as a nascent professional field of practice. We argue that those working on research impact should take a strategic, 'evidence-based' approach to maximize potential research benefits and minimize potential harms. We identify key features of evidence-based good practice in the context of research impact work. This includes integrating relevant research and theory into professional decision-making, drawing on a diversity of academic disciplines offering pertinent insights. Such an integration of scholarship and practice will improve the capacity of research impact work to make a positive difference for society. Moving the focus of research impact work to earlier stages in the research and innovation process through stakeholder engagement and anticipatory research can also boost its effectiveness. The research impact evidence base should be combined with the right kind of professional capacities and practical experience to enhance positive impact. Such capacities need to be developed through relevant education and training, for example, in participatory methods and social inclusion. Such training for research impact work needs to forge strong links between research impact scholarship and practice. Finally, there is a need for improvements in the evidence base for research impact to make it more practically useful.

Waste and by-products as sources of lycopene, phytoene, and phytofluene - Integrative review with bibliometric analysis

Food loss and waste are severe social, economic, and environmental issues. An example is the incorrect handling of waste or by-products used to obtain bioactive compounds, such as carotenoids. This review aimed to present a comprehensive overview of research on lycopene, phytoene, and phytofluene obtained from waste and by-products. In this study, an integrative literature approach was coupled with bibliometric analysis to provide a broad perspective of the topic. PRISMA guidelines were used to search studies in the Web of Science database systematically. Articles were included if (1) employed waste or by-products to obtain lycopene, phytoene, and phytofluene or (2) performed applications of the carotenoids previously extracted from waste sources. Two hundred and four articles were included in the study, and the prevalent theme was research on the recovery of lycopene from tomato processing. However, the scarcity of studies on colorless carotenoids (phytoene and phytofluene) was evidenced, although these are generally associated with lycopene. Different technologies were used to extract lycopene from plant matrices, with a clear current trend toward choosing environmentally friendly alternatives. Microbial production of carotenoids from various wastes is a highly competitive alternative to conventional processes. The results described here can guide future forays into the subject, especially regarding research on phytoene and phytofluene, potential and untapped sources of carotenoids from waste and by-products, and in choosing more efficient, safe, and environmentally sustainable extraction protocols.

Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey

PURPOSE

Open science is a collection of practices that seek to improve the accessibility, transparency, and replicability of science. Although these practices have garnered interest in related fields, it remains unclear whether open science practices have been adopted in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD). This study aimed to survey the knowledge, implementation, and perceived benefits and barriers of open science practices in CSD.

METHOD

An online survey was disseminated to researchers in the United States actively engaged in CSD research. Four-core open science practices were examined: preregistration, self-archiving, gold open access, and open data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were doctoral students (38%) or assistant professors (24%) at R1 institutions (58%). Participants reported low knowledge of preregistration and gold open access. There was, however, a high level of desire to learn more for all practices. Implementation of open science practices was also low, most notably for preregistration, gold open access, and open data (< 25%). Predictors of knowledge and participation, as well as perceived barriers to implementation, are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Although participation in open science appears low in the field of CSD, participants expressed a strong desire to learn more in order to engage in these practices in the future. Supplemental Material and Open Science Form: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21569040.

CORE: A Global Aggregation Service for Open Access Papers

This paper introduces CORE, a widely used scholarly service, which provides access to the world's largest collection of open access research publications, acquired from a global network of repositories and journals. CORE was created with the goal of enabling text and data mining of scientific literature and thus supporting scientific discovery, but it is now used in a wide range of use cases within higher education, industry, not-for-profit organisations, as well as by the general public. Through the provided services, CORE powers innovative use cases, such as plagiarism detection, in market-leading third-party organisations. CORE has played a pivotal role in the global move towards universal open access by making scientific knowledge more easily and freely discoverable. In this paper, we describe CORE's continuously growing dataset and the motivation behind its creation, present the challenges associated with systematically gathering research papers from thousands of data providers worldwide at scale, and introduce the novel solutions that were developed to overcome these challenges. The paper then provides an in-depth discussion of the services and tools built on top of the aggregated data and finally examines several use cases that have leveraged the CORE dataset and services.

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.

Biomedical supervisors' role modeling of open science practices

Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates' supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19-4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86-11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.

OpCitance: Citation contexts identified from the PubMed Central open access articles

OpCitance contains all the sentences from 2 million PubMed Central open-access (PMCOA) articles, with 137 million inline citations annotated (i.e., the "citation contexts"). Parsing out the references and citation contexts from the PMCOA XML files was non-trivial due to the diversity of referencing style. Only 0.5% citation contexts remain unidentified due to technical or human issues, e.g., references unmentioned by the authors in the text or improper XML nesting, which is more common among older articles (pre-2000). PubMed IDs (PMIDs) linked to inline citations in the XML files compared to citations harvested using the NCBI E-Utilities differed for 70.96% of the articles. Using an in-house citation matcher, called Patci, 6.84% of the referenced PMIDs were supplemented and corrected. OpCitance includes fewer total number of articles than the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, but OpCitance has 160 thousand unique articles, a higher inline citation identification rate, and a more accurate reference mapping to PMIDs. We hope that OpCitance will facilitate citation context studies in particular and benefit text-mining research more broadly.

Are open access article processing charges affordable for otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Open access articles are more frequently read and cited, and hence promote access to knowledge and new advances in healthcare. Unaffordability of open access article processing charges (APCs) may create a barrier to sharing research. We set out to assess the affordability of APCs and impact on publishing for otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

RECENT FINDINGS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in LMICs globally. Seventy-nine participants from 21 LMICs participated in the study, with the majority from lower middle-income status (66%). Fifty-four percent were otolaryngology lecturers while 30% were trainees. Eighty-seven percent of participants received a gross monthly salary of less than USD 1500. Fifty-two percent of trainees did not receive a salary. Ninety-one percent and 96% of all study participants believed APCs limit publication in open access journals and influence choice of journal for publication, respectively. Eighty percent and 95% believed APCs hinder career progression and impede sharing of research that influences patient care, respectively.

SUMMARY

APCs are unaffordable for LMIC otolaryngology researchers, hinder career progression and inhibit the dissemination of LMIC-specific research that can improve patient care. Novel models should be developed to support open access publishing in LMICs.

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.

Researchers support preprints and open access publishing, but with reservations: A questionnaire survey of MBSJ members

Since the 1990s, journals have become increasingly online and open access. In fact, about 50% of articles published in 2021 were open access. The use of preprints (i.e., non-peer-reviewed articles) has also increased. However, there is limited awareness of these concepts among academics. Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey among members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan. The survey was conducted between September 2022 and October 2022, with 633 respondents, 500 of whom (79.0%) were faculty members. In total, 478 (76.6%) respondents had published articles as open access, and 571 (91.5%) wanted to publish their articles in open access. Although 540 (86.5%) respondents knew about preprints, only 183 (33.9%) had posted preprints before. In the open-ended section of the questionnaire survey, several comments were made about the cost burdens associated with open access and the difficulty of how academic preprints are handled. Although open access is widespread, and recognition of preprints is increasing, some issues remain that need to be addressed. Academic and institutional support, and transformative agreement may help reduce the cost burden. Guidelines for handling preprints in academia are also important for responding to changes in the research environment.

Time from submission to publication in urology journals: A look at publication times before and during Covid-19

Background

The Covid-19 pandemic impacted scientific publishing, though it's effect on publication times in urology literature is unknown. The objective of our study were to determine and compare acceptance and publication times in general and specific urology journals, and to quantify these times before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Methods

We identified all original articles published in seven urology journals in 2019 and 2021, and extracted data on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication times. Differences between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

A total of 2880 articles were included, comprising 1601 articles published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Less experimental/animal studies were published in 2021 compared to 2019 (197 vs. 289). Time between submission and online publication was longer in 2021 (median 4.4 vs 3.3 months, p < 0.001), though acceptance times were not different (median 3.3 vs 3.3 months, p = 0.25). Prostate (median: 2.8 months, Neurourology and Urodynamics (median: 2.8 months) and Word Journal of Urology (median 2.9 months) had the shortest acceptance time in 2021. Time between submission and in-print publication ranged from 4.6 months (IQR: 3.6-6.8) for Prostate to 11.9 months (IQR: 9.8-13.2) for World Journal of Urology. Acceptance times were significantly longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate. Moreover, time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics. The median time to in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021).

Conclusions

We identified journal specific acceptance and publication times and observed substantial differences between urology journals for the years 2019 and 2021.

Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: five altmetric sources observed over a decade show evolving trends, by research age, attention source maturity and open access status

The study of temporal trends in altmetrics is under-developed, and this multi-year observation study addresses some of the deficits in our understanding of altmetric behaviour over time. The attention surrounding research outputs, as partially captured by altmetrics, or alternative metrics, constitutes many varied forms of data. Over the years 2008–2013, a set of 7739 papers were sampled on six occasions. Five altmetric data sources were recorded (Twitter, Mendeley, News, Blogs and Policy) and analysed for temporal trends, with particular attention being paid to their Open Access status and discipline. Twitter attention both starts and ends quickly. Mendeley readers accumulate quickly, and continue to grow over the following years. News and blog attention is quick to start, although news attention persists over a longer timeframe. Citations in policy documents are slow to start, and are observed to be growing over a decade after publication. Over time, growth in Twitter activity is confirmed, alongside an apparent decline in blogging attention. Mendeley usage is observed to grow, but shows signs of recent decline. Policy attention is identified as the slowest form of impact studied by altmetrics, and one that strongly favours the Humanities and Social Sciences. The Open Access Altmetrics Advantage is seen to emerge and evolve over time, with each attention source showing different trends. The existence of late-emergent attention in all attention sources is confirmed.

Assessing the publication output in the field of forensic science and legal medicine using Web of Science database from 2011 to 2020

The aim of this study was threefold. First, it analyzed the characteristics of the publication outputs for the Legal Medicine (LM) category using the Web of Science (WoS) database during 2011-2020. Second, it discussed the distribution of the papers for the 25 most productive countries/regions in terms of quality and quantity, such as the h-index and GDP per capita. Finally, it investigated the trend and temporal stability of the journal impact factor (JIF) and determined the percentage of the journal self-citations. The findings suggested that the number of papers, the average number of pages of the papers, the average number of cited references in the papers, the average number of authors per paper, the percentage of open access papers, as well as international and domestic collaboration tended to increase regularly. However, the productivity was limited when compared to the whole WoS database, since there was no significant change in the number of the journals. The countries/regions with the highest number of publications were not those that made the most impact in terms of the widespread impact of the publications. The level of international cooperation and the funding for the research had dramatic impact on the visibility of papers. The average JIF has increased significantly while the journal self-citation rates have decreased in a similar way. The journals have had very stable (have not fluctuated) impact factors over time. During the period studied, the journals with the higher impact factors (Q1, Q2) published many more papers than journals with the lower impact factors (Q3, Q4).