Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews

Over the past decade, the phenomenon of "fake" peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, "genuine" peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists

The use of lists of questionable journals as a means to ensure research quality and integrity is the subject of an ongoing debate due to their ambiguous criteria. To assess the reasonableness of these lists from a typological perspective, we examined how effectively they reflect differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists from the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a case study, we categorized listed journals by warning levels and publication years. Our findings indicate potential inconsistencies in the criteria used for assigning warning levels, as we observed varying degrees of differences (or their absence) among groups across different key academic indicators. Notably, when it comes to citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator, it appears that these criteria may not have been considered for grouping, although this lack of clarity from the creators is apparent. This underscores the importance of conducting more scientific and thorough evaluations of lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing precise standards and data. Our study also provides recommendations for future iterations of such lists by different institutions.

Editors in Chief of Public Health Reports, 1878-2022: Men and Women Who Shaped the Discussion of Public Health Practice From 1918 Influenza to COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Public Health Reports (PHR), the official journal of the Office of the US Surgeon General and US Public Health Service, is the oldest public health journal in the United States. Considering its heritage through the eyes of its past editors in chief (EICs), many of whom have been influential public health figures, can provide a fresh point of view on US public health history, of which the journal has been an integral part. Here, we reconstruct the timeline of past PHR EICs and identify women among them.

METHODS

We reconstructed the PHR EIC timeline by reviewing the journal's previous mastheads and its articles describing leadership transitions. For each EIC, we identified dates in office, concurrent job titles, key contributions, and other important developments.

RESULTS

PHR had 25 EIC transitions in 109 years of its history, during which a single individual in charge of the journal could be identified. Only 5 identifiable EICs were women, who served as EIC for approximately one-quarter of the journal's traceable history (28 of 109 years). PHR's longest-serving EIC was a woman named Marian P. Tebben (1974-1994).

CONCLUSIONS

PHR history revealed frequent EIC transitions and a low representation of women among its EICs. Mapping the timeline of past EICs of a historic public health journal can yield valuable insights into the workings of US public health, especially in the area of building a research evidence base.

Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.

Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool?

Yamada and Teixeira da Silva voiced valid concerns with the inadequacies of an online machine learning-based tool to detect predatory journals, and stressed on the urgent need for an automated, open, online-based semi-quantitative system that measures "predatoriness". We agree that the said machine learning-based tool lacks accuracy in its demarcation and identification of journals outside those already found within existing black and white lists, and that its use could have undesirable impact on the community. We note further that the key characteristic of journals being predatory, namely a lack of stringent peer review, would normally not have the visibility necessary for training and informing machine learning-based online tools. This, together with the gray zone of inadequate scholarly practice and the plurality in authors' perception of predatoriness, makes it desirable for any machine-based, quantitative assessment to be complemented or moderated by a community-based, qualitative assessment that would do more justice to both journals and authors.

How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought

Peer review plays an essential role as one of the cornerstones of the scholarly publishing system. There are many initiatives that aim to improve the way in which peer review is organized, resulting in a highly complex landscape of innovation in peer review. Different initiatives are based on different views on the most urgent challenges faced by the peer review system, leading to a diversity of perspectives on how the system can be improved. To provide a more systematic understanding of the landscape of innovation in peer review, we suggest that the landscape is shaped by four schools of thought: The Quality & Reproducibility school, the Democracy & Transparency school, the Equity & Inclusion school, and the Efficiency & Incentives school. Each school has a different view on the key problems of the peer review system and the innovations necessary to address these problems. The schools partly complement each other, but we argue that there are also important tensions between them. We hope that the four schools of thought offer a useful framework to facilitate conversations about the future development of the peer review system.

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.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Why do master's students of humanities and social sciences publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals? A qualitative study based on Grounded Theory

In China, master's students in humanities and social sciences (HSS) are becoming the main target of Chinese-language predatory journals. Existing research has not paid enough attention to why these students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This research interviewed 30 HSS master's students with different majors using semi-structured interviews and Grounded Theory to analyze the data; it found that research discrimination, research context, self-awareness, and individual demand are the main reasons why students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This study provides the following suggestions in an effort to solve the problem of Chinese-language predatory journals. First, the Chinese government should draw up a blacklist of Chinese-language predatory journals. Second, the research evaluation departments of Chinese universities and research institutions should evaluate the research results of HSS master's students based on this list. Third, Chinese universities or scientific research institutions should strengthen the training of HSS master tutors and increase their awareness of Chinese-language predatory journals. And finally, Chinese HSS master's students should be taught about the hazards of Chinese-language predatory journals in research integrity and ethics courses, and refuse to publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals.

Brilliant Ideas Can Come in All Sizes: Research Letters

The Journal of Medical Internet Research is pleased to offer “Research Letter” as a new article type. Research Letters are similar to original and short paper types in that they report the original results of studies in a peer-reviewed, structured scientific communication. The Research Letter article type is optimal for presenting new, early, or sometimes preliminary research findings, including interesting observations from ongoing research with significant implications that justify concise and rapid communication.

Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals

In this paper, we analyze the role of science and technology studies (STS) journal editors in organizing and maintaining the peer review economy. We specifically conceptualize peer review as a gift economy running on perpetually renewed experiences of mutual indebtedness among members of an intellectual community. While the peer review system is conventionally presented as self-regulating, we draw attention to its vulnerabilities and to the essential curating function of editors. Aside from inherent complexities, there are various shifts in the broader political-economic and sociotechnical organization of scholarly publishing that have recently made it more difficult for editors to organize robust cycles of gift exchange. This includes the increasing importance of journal metrics and associated changes in authorship practices; the growth and differentiation of the STS journal landscape; and changes in publishing funding models and the structure of the publishing market through which interactions among authors, editors, and reviewers are reconfigured. To maintain a functioning peer review economy in the face of numerous pressures, editors must balance contradictory imperatives: the need to triage intellectual production and rely on established cycles of gift exchange for efficiency, and the need to expand cycles of gift exchange to ensure the sustainability and diversity of the peer review economy.

Advancing Infodemiology in a Digital Intensive Era

Collapse

An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts

Background: There are currently numerous innovations in peer review and quality assurance in scholarly publishing. The Research on Research Institute conducted a programme of co-produced projects investigating these innovations. This literature review was part of one such project 'Experiments in peer review' which created an inventory and framework of peer review innovations. The aim of this literature review was to aid the development of the inventory by identifying innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts reported in the scholarly literature and by providing a summary of the different approaches. This did not include interventions in editorial processes. Methods: This review of reviews is based on data identified from Web of Science and Scopus limited from 2010 to 2021. A total of 291 records were screened, with six review articles chosen for the focus of the literature review. Items were selected that described approaches to innovating peer review or illustrated examples.   Results: The overview of innovations are drawn from six review articles. The innovations are divided into three high-level categories: approaches to peer review, reviewer focussed initiatives and technology to support peer review with sub-categories of results presented in tabular form and summarised. A summary of all innovations found is also presented. Conclusions: From a simple synthesis of the review authors' conclusions, three key messages are presented: observations on current practice; authors' views on the implications of innovations in peer review; and calls for action in peer review research and practice.

Innovations in peer review in scholarly publishing: a meta-summary

Background: There are currently numerous innovations in peer review and quality assurance in scholarly publishing. The Research on Research Institute conducted a programme of co-produced projects investigating these innovations. This literature review was part of one such project 'Experiments in peer review' which created an inventory and framework of peer review innovations. The aim of this literature review was to aid the development of the inventory by identifying innovations in peer review reported in the scholarly literature and by providing a summary of the different approaches. Methods: This meta-summary is based on data identified from Web of Science and Scopus limited from 2010 to 2021. A total of 247 papers were screened, with 6 review articles chosen for the focus of the literature review. Items were selected that described approaches to innovating peer review or illustrated examples.   Results: The summary of innovations are drawn from 6 review articles. The innovations are divided into three high-level categories: approaches to peer review, reviewer focussed initiatives and technology to support peer review with sub-categories of results presented in tabular form and summarised. A summary of all innovations found is also presented. Conclusions: From a simple synthesis of the review authors' conclusions, three key messages are presented: observations on current practice; authors' views on the implications of innovations in peer review; and calls for action in peer review research and practice.

Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review

Identifying reviewers is argued to improve the quality and fairness of peer review, but is generally disfavoured by reviewers. To gain some insight into the factors that influence when reviewers are willing to have their identity revealed, I examined which reviewers voluntarily reveal their identities to authors at the journal Functional Ecology, at which reviewer identities are confidential unless reviewers sign their comments to authors. I found that 5.6% of reviewers signed their comments to authors. This proportion increased slightly over time, from 4.4% in 2003-2005 to 6.7% in 2013-2015. Male reviewers were 1.8 times more likely to sign their comments to authors than were female reviewers, and this difference persisted over time. Few reviewers signed all of their reviews; reviewers were more likely to sign their reviews when their rating of the manuscript was more positive, and papers that had at least one signed review were more likely to be invited for revision. Signed reviews were, on average, longer and recommended more references to authors. My analyses cannot distinguish cause and effect for the patterns observed, but my results suggest that 'open-identities' review, in which reviewers are not permitted to be anonymous, will probably reduce the degree to which reviewers are critical in their assessment of manuscripts and will differentially affect recruitment of male and female reviewers, negatively affecting the diversity of reviewers recruited by journals.

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research.  To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research.  To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

Current market rates for scholarly publishing services

For decades, the supra-inflation increase of subscription prices for scholarly journals has concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this “serials crisis”, open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. These results appear uncontroversial as they not only match previous data using different methodologies, but also conform to the costs that many publishers have openly or privately shared. We discuss the numerous additional non-publication items that make up the difference between these publication costs and final price at the more expensive, legacy publishers.

Current market rates for scholarly publishing services

For decades, the supra-inflation increase of subscription prices for scholarly journals has concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this "serials crisis", open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. These results appear uncontroversial as they not only match previous data using different methodologies, but also conform to the costs that many publishers have openly or privately shared. We discuss the numerous additional non-publication items that make up the difference between these publication costs and final price at the more expensive, legacy publishers.

Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions

The proportion of research outputs published in open access journals or made available on other freely-accessible platforms has increased over the past two decades, driven largely by funder mandates, institutional policies, grass-roots advocacy, and changing attitudes in the research community. However, the relative effectiveness of these different interventions has remained largely unexplored. Here we present a robust, transparent and updateable method for analysing how these interventions affect the open access performance of individual institutes. We studied 1,207 institutions from across the world, and found that, in 2017, the top-performing universities published around 80-90% of their research open access. The analysis also showed that publisher-mediated (gold) open access was popular in Latin American and African universities, whereas the growth of open access in Europe and North America has mostly been driven by repositories.

Perils of Precipitate Publication: Fraudulent and Substandard COVID-19 Research

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. They illustrate the perils of precipitate publication, inadequate peer-reviewing and co-authorship without proper assumption of responsibility. A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.

Four Examples of Potential Competing Interests Affecting How Clinicians Read and Use Research: Financial, Academic, Idealistic, and Personal

The integrity of published scientific literature relies on transparency. There are processes in place to promote transparency and enhance the trustworthiness of study results. Journals, including the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT), require full disclosure of competing interests when authors submit manuscripts for publication. A competing interest is "a financial or intellectual relationship that may impact an individual's ability to approach a scientific question with an open mind." The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the types of competing interests that may influence the work of authors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(3):116-117. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0103.

Moving Forward, Together

This past summer, while attending a genetics conference in Bar Harbor, Maine, I was informed that I would be the incoming editor of the Oncology Nursing Forum (ONF). Since then, I have tried to coalesce my thoughts to write my first editorial. Bar Harbor in July is as idyllic a setting for musings as one could hope for. Even so, I was finding it difficult to express my gratitude for this opportunity to provide stewardship to ONF, one of the premier journals in the field of oncology nursing and an important part of the history of the Oncology Nursing Society.

Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications

In this 20th anniversary theme issue, we are celebrating how JMIR Publications, an innovative publisher deeply rooted in academia and created by scientists for scientists, pioneered the open access model, is advancing digital health research, is disrupting the scholarly publishing world, and is helping to empower patients. All this has been made possible by the disintermediating power of the internet. And we are not done innovating: Our new series of "superjournals," called JMIRx, will provide a glimpse into what we see as the future and end goal in scholarly publishing: open science. In this model, the vast majority of papers will be published on preprint servers first, with "overlay" journals then competing to peer review and publish peer-reviewed "versions of record" of the best papers.

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.

The Most Influential Medical Journals According to Wikipedia: Quantitative Analysis

Background

Wikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world’s largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.

Objective

We aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.

Methods

We retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.

Results

From 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.

Conclusions

We found evidence of “recentism,” which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.

Publishing peer review materials

Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.

Three-Dimensional Portable Document Format (3D PDF) in Clinical Communication and Biomedical Sciences: Systematic Review of Applications, Tools, and Protocols

Background

The Portable Document Format (PDF) is the standard file format for the communication of biomedical information via the internet and for electronic scholarly publishing. Although PDF allows for the embedding of three-dimensional (3D) objects and although this technology has great potential for the communication of such data, it is not broadly used by the scientific community or by clinicians.

Objective

The objective of this review was to provide an overview of existing publications that apply 3D PDF technology and the protocols and tools for the creation of model files and 3D PDFs for scholarly purposes to demonstrate the possibilities and the ways to use this technology.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles searched for were in English, peer-reviewed with biomedical reference, published since 2005 in a journal or presented at a conference or scientific meeting. Ineligible articles were removed after screening. The found literature was categorized into articles that (1) applied 3D PDF for visualization, (2) showed ways to use 3D PDF, and (3) provided tools or protocols for the creation of 3D PDFs or necessary models. Finally, the latter category was analyzed in detail to provide an overview of the state of the art.

Results

The search retrieved a total of 902 items. Screening identified 200 in-scope publications, 13 covering the use of 3D PDF for medical purposes. Only one article described a clinical routine use case; all others were pure research articles. The disciplines that were covered beside medicine were many. In most cases, either animal or human anatomies were visualized. A method, protocol, software, library, or other tool for the creation of 3D PDFs or model files was described in 19 articles. Most of these tools required advanced programming skills and/or the installation of further software packages. Only one software application presented an all-in-one solution with a graphical user interface.

Conclusions

The use of 3D PDF for visualization purposes in clinical communication and in biomedical publications is still not in common use, although both the necessary technique and suitable tools are available, and there are many arguments in favor of this technique. The potential of 3D PDF usage should be disseminated in the clinical and biomedical community. Furthermore, easy-to-use, standalone, and free-of-charge software tools for the creation of 3D PDFs should be developed.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

The case for a regional approach to publication impact

Healthcare-related research is largely regional. Put simply, this is because disease burdens differ between world regions. Even global burdens, such as ischaemic heart disease and cancer, display distinctive characteristics in certain regions that are not seen in others. Regional differences in infrastructure, resources and human capital further compound the differences seen, as they affect the way in which the local scientific community can interact with the local disease burden. As such, it seems fair to assume that healthcare-related research ought to be regionally distributed. Although translation of research between regions can sometimes be done, the larger the gap in infrastructure, resources or human capital between regions, the less likely it is that it can be adequately bridged. A recent example of this pertains to accepted life-saving treatment for sepsis in high-income settings, which had the opposite effect when implemented and evaluated in low-income Zambia. This regionality of clinical medicine is, however, not reflected in academic publishing; the impact of a journal is measured and understood by metrics that use the world as their denominator. Therefore, top medical journals are perceived to be relevant equally to all contexts and regions. However, there is a strong case to be made that this lack of granularity is deleterious, and that the creation of a regional impact metric would place clinicians, researchers, and libraries in a better position to understand which journals are relevant to their context and practice.

What I learned from predatory publishers

This article is a first-hand account of the author’s work identifying and listing predatory publishers from 2012 to 2017. Predatory publishers use the gold (author pays) open access model and aim to generate as much revenue as possible, often foregoing a proper peer review. The paper details how predatory publishers came to exist and shows how they were largely enabled and condoned by the open-access social movement, the scholarly publishing industry, and academic librarians. The author describes tactics predatory publishers used to attempt to be removed from his lists, details the damage predatory journals cause to science, and comments on the future of scholarly publishing.

An Institutional Repository Experience at a Large Health Care System

Institutional repositories (IRs) collect, preserve, and disseminate the scholarly output of an organization. Though common in academic settings, they are less so in hospitals or health care systems. The librarians for Aurora Health Care decided to create a primarily citation-level IR to organize and promote the scholarly output of Aurora faculty, residents, and fellows using the proprietary software Digital Commons, a product of the company bepress. The repository also hosts a newly published peer-reviewed journal and includes digitized historical images and institutional memorabilia. Suggested alternatives are given for hospitals or health care systems that may not currently be able to pursue a full-fledged IR.

The impact of fraudulent and irreproducible data to the translational research crisis - solutions and implementation

One of the aims of basic neuroscience research is ultimately the development of therapeutics to cure diseases. Funders granting money to research institutions increasingly express interest into how their financial resources are used and look for successful translation in clinical practice. Disappointingly, many findings that started out promising in basic research projects and phase I trials did not live up to the promise of therapeutic efficacy in later phase II or III trials. An inordinately high amount of time and money is thus spent on research that does not always have the required human impact. Potential reasons for these problems are numerous. Although research misconduct occurs and contributes to this shortcoming, it is not the only important factor. Frequently, basic science results turn out to be irreproducible. Irreproducibility, outside of malfeasance, is multifactorial and can include poor experimental design, conduct, statistical analysis, reporting standards, and conceptual flaws. Further confounding problems include an insufficient transferability of animal to human physiology, as well as intersubject group variability, for example, sexual dimorphisms. While the causes of poor data reproducibility are therefore numerous, equally there are many groups that can contribute to improvements in how basic science is reported. Here, we will review how the Journal of Neurochemistry can contribute to increasing the value of preclinical and translational research. Despite a vast amount of very promising basic research findings, these failed to successfully translate into the clinical practice so far. The reasons for this 'data reproducibility crisis' are numerous, for example, rooting in insufficient experimental design, conceptual flaws, incorrect statistical planning and evaluation, incomplete model system that do not adequately reproduce the human physiology, and further reasons discussed in this Review with the aim to present practical solutions that can be implemented by researchers, journals editors, and reviewers. We will also explain measures the Journal of Neurochemistry have implemented to overcome these issues and weaknesses in preclinical research. These includes adherence to the ARRIVE ( www.nc3rs.org) guidelines, NINDS standards (doi: 10.1038/nature11556), and The Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines (TOP) Committee guidelines (https://cos.io/top/#TOP). This article is part of the 60th Anniversary special issue.

Before Journal Submission, Build Your Own Peer Review Board

As professionals and potential leaders in health care, nurses should be committed to advancing practice through publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Asking trusted and experienced colleagues to critique a manuscript before its submission to a journal is a useful strategy to improve the quality of the manuscript and increase its chances of publication.

PUBLISHING SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOLARSHIP IN THE GLOBAL ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

South Africa's academic publishing history has been profoundly influenced by its colonial heritage. This is reflected in the publication of Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society (later, the Royal Society of South Africa) from 1878. Although the Society and journal sought to promote original research about South Africa, it was modelled after the Royal Society in London and formed part of an imperial scientific community. As the local higher education institutions grew more independent and research-focused, local scholarly publishing developed as well, with university presses playing an increasingly important role. The University of South Africa (Unisa) Press started publishing departmental journals in the 1950s, with a focus on journals that 'speak to the student', and it is today the only South African university press with an active journals publishing programme. As external funding declined and the country became intellectually isolated in the high apartheid period, the Press managed to attract journals that could no longer be subsidized by learned societies and other universities. More recently, new co-publishing arrangements have brought South African journals back into an international intellectual community. Although some argue that this constitutes a re-colonization of South African knowledge production, it is also an innovative strategy for positioning local research in a global context.

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview

Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ, and F1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications.