Publishing Landscape Research Articles

Infant and Child Development: A journal for open, transparent and inclusive science from prenatal through emerging adulthood

<i>Infant and Child Development</i>: A journal for open, transparent and inclusive science from prenatal through emerging adulthood

Blockchain technologies in healthcare: Russia’s position on the global publishing landscape

Blockchain technologies in healthcare: Russia’s position on the global publishing landscape

A century of Hereditas: from local publication to international journal

BackgroundThe Mendelian Society of Lund launched Hereditas in 1920. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of Hereditas’s hundred-year existence, focusing on the conditions for a learned society to publish a scientific journal, and the journal’s importance for the publication and dissemination of genetic research. The article focuses on the historical development of the journal and analyses how the content and orientation of research published in Hereditas have changed over the years.MethodsThe historical study is based on the collation and interpretation of archival material, mainly held in the Mendelian Society’s archive, which includes the Hereditas archive. The bibliometric analyses are based on bibliographic metadata from Web of Science (WoS). Together with descriptive statistics, co-citation analyses were performed by using BibExcel, in combination with the clustering and visualisation tool VOSviewer. Journals with articles citing Hereditas articles were identified as a complement to the co-citation analyses.ResultsThe history of the journal falls into three main periods: a local period, 1920–1959, when Hereditas was primarily intended for Swedish geneticists; a Scandinavian period, 1960–1988, when Hereditas was the official journal of the Scandinavian Association of Geneticists; and an international period from 1989 onwards. The original decision that Hereditas should cover genetic research with no particular specialisation was retained throughout. Its publications demonstrate the continuing presence of genetic research on plants and animals, albeit with a shifting focus, while human genetics emerged slowly and reached its peak in the period 1960–1988.ConclusionIn the hundred years of Hereditas’s existence, the publishing landscape has changed dramatically, including a far greater number of specialist journals, changes to the academic merit system, new commercial models for publishing, and digitalisation. Over the years, the journal’s survival has therefore been dependent on the strong commitment of its owners and an ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.

The journals of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research [JBMR] and its sister journal JBMR Plus) recognize peer review, whether pre- or post-publication, as an essential guard of scientific integrity and rigor that shapes academic discourse in our field. In this Perspective, we present a vision and philosophy of peer review in a rapidly changing publishing landscape. We emphasize the importance of journal peer reviewers as active players in shaping collegial behavior in the musculoskeletal research community and provide information about benefits and resources available for reviewers and reviewers-in-training. Publishing is becoming increasingly transparent, bringing benefits to authors, to reviewers, and to the scientific community at large. We discuss new initiatives such as transparent peer review and preprint servers, the ways they are changing scientific publishing, and how JBMR is responding to broaden the impact of musculoskeletal research. We emphasize the need to change any perception of peer reviewers as gatekeepers to viewing them as shepherds, who partner with authors and editors in the publishing endeavor. Promoting access, transparency, and collegiality in the way we assess science in our community will elevate its quality, clarify its communication, and increase its societal impact. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Open Access and Plan S: An International Comparison

MODERATOR: Jennifer Deyton Senior Partner J&J Editorial Cary, North Carolina SPEAKERS: Brittany Swett Executive Director J&J Editorial Cary, North Carolina Margaret Perkins Managing Editor New England Journal of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts REPORTER: Judy Connors Owner Do It Write Editorial, LLC Metro Philadelphia are The impetus for this informative and timely discussion on Plan S was the ABEC (Associação Brasileira de Editores Cientificos) meeting in Brazil, where most journals are already Open Access (OA) and would not be affected as severely as other non-OA journals would be by the European move towards OA/Plan S. The persistent question is how other countries would address the potential implementation of Plan S. This session was developed to identify differences in potential Plan S implementation between the United States, South America, North America, Asia, and Europe. While the COVID-19 global pandemic has certainly slowed international participation, starting this conversation is critical. The first speaker, Brittany Swett, discussed what editorial offices need to know now about Plan S. The publishing landscape ecosystem is complex and includes many participants—libraries, society publishers, authors, institutions, and commercial publishers—and, as such, publishing vendors, innovator/technology groups, non-profits and consultants all have a role to play in developing a plan. Swett stated, “The general disruption of the digital age, technology uses, and the speed of knowledge exchange have all caused a continual evolution in the landscape of sharing data.” The scholarly publishing environment has undergone a transition, starting in the late 1990s when journal mergers and acquisitions dictated a new infrastructure for […]

Trends in Rooibos Tea (Aspalathus linearis) research (1994–2018): A scientometric assessment

This bibliometric assessment aimed to gain insight into the publication landscape over a 25-year period on one of South Africa's most coveted indigenous plants, Aspalathus linearis, known in commerce as rooibos tea. Despite the growing global market, and acceptance as a refreshing and health-promoting tea, scientific publications on rooibos, have not been subjected to scientometric analyses. A total of 421 relevant documents spanning the period 1994-2018 as indexed in the Scopus database were considered using VOSviewer. The global publication contribution on rooibos tea shows an average annual growth rate of 27.2%, and citation impact averaged 30 per publication. South African authors dominated the research landscape, contributing to approximately 60% of the total publication output. Prominent research themes include oxidative stress and inflammatory process mitigation using rooibos tea extracts, agronomy and fair trade in the rooibos tea industry, metabolic syndrome research, antioxidant activity, toxicity, quality control of rooibos tea and formulated products. More recently, a research focus has developed around bioavailability evaluation of rooibos tea components, green synthesis and nanoparticle formulations with the aim of improving the efficacy and potency of rooibos tea in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes. We propose that research attention should be devoted to the mechanistic action of rooibos metabolites in mitigation of infectious diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and obesity which will inevitably lay the foundation for clinical studies to proceed.

Clio’s Non-education History Journal’s (NEHJ): Broadening Journal Publishing for History of Higher Education

Historians of higher education need to consider publishing in non-education history journals [NEHJ’s] to place scholarship, especially for visibility for their research, or remain an isolated research specialization. This examination focuses on the landscape of history journals that publish history of education topics, specifically [NEHJ’s], on an international basis. A case study approach yielded data and, discussion revolves on history of higher education publication uses in four representative case studies: colleges and universities, professors, science, and medicine, to illustrate NEHJ’s and their contribution to history of higher education. Publishing considerations of this scholarly landscape, based on data gathered from various databases will provide the baseline for exploratory discussion of disciplinary cultures as they inform or deform history of higher education published within NEHJ literature. Animated by historiographic, subject, and methodological concerns, this discussion meshes histories of higher education vis-a-vis globalization within the publishing landscape and the transnational turn in scholarship. Journals, geographical and linguistic dispersion, articles and book reviews, are examined, revealing a larger publishing topography for NEHJ journals.

Railway Reading and the Late Victorian Literary Series

Railway Reading and the Late Victorian Literary Series

Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions

The scholarly publication landscape continues to grow in complexity, presenting researchers with ever-increasing dilemmas regarding journal choice. However, research into the decision-making processes associated with journal choice is limited. This article contributes by reporting on an international survey of researchers in various disciplines and with varying levels of experience. The study examines the extent to which various journal characteristics affect journal selection, perceptions of the extent to which university and national research policies impact on their journal choice, and the influence of academics’ familiarity, confidence and objectives on journal choice. The most important factors influencing journal choice were as follows: reliability of reviewing, usefulness of reviewers’ feedback, the reputation of the journal and confidence that their article is in scope for the journal. Publishing productivity, publishing experience, researcher role and discipline had little impact on the ranking of journal choice factors, suggesting that the research community is homogeneous.

Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE

The so-called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—have gained their place in the scholarly publishing landscape, especially providing article-level complementary measures. But what do they point to? A hypothesis has found its way into the recent literature: they could be an early sign of impact, conveying in advance the information carried later by citations. Here the focus is on another possible relationship, namely, the one that may exist between alternative metrics and retractions. The research question is as follows: in comparison to non-retracted, contemporary publications, are the retracted articles likely to be more (or less) viewed and commented (but also «tweeted» and «blogged») before the retraction takes place? The above relationship is tested on a set of n = 209 papers retracted by PLoS ONE and a control group including 2n = 418 contemporary, non-retracted articles featured in the same journal. Significant and positive differences in means are found concerning the mentions in peer review sites and the number of views and downloads. On the whole, by considering five alternative metrics, about one-fourth of the retractions are predicted correctly.

Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, induced a global pandemic for which an effective cure, either in the form of a drug or vaccine, has yet to be discovered. In the few brief months that the world has known Covid-19, there has been an unprecedented volume of papers published related to this disease, either in a bid to find solutions, or to discuss applied or related aspects. Data from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, and Elsevier’s Scopus, which do not index preprints, were assessed. Our estimates indicate that 23,634 unique documents, 9960 of which were in common to both databases, were published between January 1 and June 30, 2020. Publications include research articles, letters, editorials, notes and reviews. As one example, amongst the 21,542 documents in Scopus, 47.6% were research articles, 22.4% were letters, and the rest were reviews, editorials, notes and other. Based on both databases, the top three countries, ranked by volume of published papers, are the USA, China, and Italy while BMJ, Journal of Medical Virology and The Lancet published the largest number of Covid-19-related papers. This paper provides one snapshot of how the publishing landscape has evolved in the first six months of 2020 in response to this pandemic and discusses the risks associated with the speed of publications.

An enduring, high‐quality benchmark within the publishing landscape

An enduring, high‐quality benchmark within the publishing landscape

Editorial

Dear Readers, Dear Authors, Dear Reviewers, We are living in unusual times and I am sure that you are all somewhat tired to hear about Corona again. But we have to acknowledge the impact it had on us on many levels and hope you have managed to stay clear of any infections, that you and your loved ones are safe and sound. The editorial team of ChemBioEng Reviews, although working from home since March, has done their best to keep business going as usual. Therefore, instead of dwelling on the difficulties (most news outlets are already doing that quite well), we would like to highlight some positive aspects of ChemBioEng Reviews that may lift our spirits and allow us to be thankful. Foremost, we proudly announce that ChemBioEng Reviews has finally received its first impact factor. Being anticipated for a long time, the result is quite an achievement: 3.83 is the highest IF among the Wiley Engineering portfolio and shows that the community values our contributions. But this has not been possible without your continuous support. We therefore would like to express our deepest gratitude for your loyalty and encouragement over the last years. Together we will succeed! Last year, we also talked about the agreement Wiley has signed with Project DEAL, allowing researchers from German institutions to publish OpenAccess without additional costs to them. While we are now in our second year, we can say that the agreement is successfully embraced. But it only applies to German institutions; what about the rest of our international contributors? As the publishing landscape continues to push for widespread free access to research, Wiley has followed up with a variety of OpenAccess deals with different countries. Besides the agreement in Germany, there also exist agreements with British, Dutch, Austrian, Hungarian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, and American consortia, and many more are bound to follow. For a full list, please visit Wiley Author Services, keyword “Open Access”. That being said, we are always happy to receive your contributions, OpenAccess or otherwise. We are also curious to hear back from you, to know what you think of us, our topics, our website, and if we can improve somehow. If you have any suggestions, ideas or questions, please let us know, we will be very happy to discuss it with you. Email us at cben@wiley.com or follow us on our newly created Facebook page. With this, we leave you to discover and enjoy this newest issue of ChemBioEng Reviews. Stay safe and healthy! Yours sincerely, Cordula Buse (Deputy Editor) and Barbara Boeck (Editor-in-Chief) Cordula Buse Barbara Boeck

Carissa Gilman: Taking the Reins During Uncertain Times

This isn’t how Carissa Gilman thought her year as President of the CSE would start. But here we are, almost half a year into a global pandemic that has pushed everything into a constant state of flux and uncertainty. As a scientific publishing veteran, having worked for both authors and editors, and now as Managing Editor of the American Cancer Society’s journal Cancer, she’s seen many changes to the publishing landscape, so I thought it would be a good time to talk with her about her experiences, CSE in particular. In early July, I spoke with Carissa about her life in publishing, her love of horses and dogs, and the challenges and opportunities ahead for CSE and scientific publishing. Science Editor: How did you get involved in science editing and production? Carissa Gilman: I got my degree in English, and when I got out of college, I was just looking for any job where I could use my degree that was not teaching. I was looking in the newspaper (that’s how long ago it was) for any job that I thought applied. There was an editorial assistant position and I just saw the word “editorial” and zeroed in on it. It was at a nonprofit health services research organization, so I started my career in scholarly publishing as an author’s editor. I helped researchers prepare and submit their papers to journals and, like a lot of nonprofits, it had some funding issues: I saw the writing on the wall […]

Microplastics and nanoplastics in global food webs: A bibliometric analysis (2009–2019)

This paper presents the research landscape on microplastics and nanoplastics (M/NPs) in global food webs based on a bibliometric analysis of 330 publications published in 2009–2019 extracted from Web of Science. The publications increased tremendously since 2013. Marine Pollution Bulletin is one of the top productive journals for this topic. The publication landscape related to M/NPs in global food webs, as interdisciplinary research, is highly dependent on the funding availability. The high productivities of England, China, USA and European countries are attributed to the funding from the agencies at regional or national levels. Keyword analysis reveals the shift of research hotspots from investigations on M/NPs absorbed by various organisms in the ecosystems to studies on the trophic transfer of M/NPs and sorbed contaminants in the food webs and their associated adverse impacts. Funding agencies play important roles in leading the future development of this topic.

Why Books are Important in the Scholarly Communication System in Social Sciences and Humanities

Books are relevant outputs in research in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and need to be considered properly in research evaluation. Books are different from journals and the scholarly book publishing sector remains quite unknown within evaluation agencies. This paper describes the state of the scholarly publishing sector, beyond the large publishing groups and imprints, focusing the attention to the role of small- and medium-sized scholarly publishers at the national level. Bibliodiversity and multilingualism are essential values for representing plural and diverse SSH research. They are also linked to societal impact. Academic Book Publishers project and Helsinki Initiative are described to this regard. Finally, some remarks and recommendations for addressing the assessment of books are provided.Policy HighlightsSince monographs and edited books are essential communication media in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), they should be considered properly in research evaluation processes. Books are not outputs of second level in SSH research.Books are different from journals, which means that specific knowledge on the book publishing ecosystem and editorial practices is needed for addressing their evaluation. In this sense, it is important:Establishing stronger connections between the associations of scholarly publishers and research evaluation agencies.Boosting research on national academic book publishing landscapes.SSH research may be locally oriented and therefore published in national languages through national journals and publishers. Academic books should be evaluated considering this relevant feature of SSH research. It entails:Using complete publication data sources that reflect the diversity of scholarly publishers contributing to the dissemination of high quality research in SSH.Acknowledging the role of the small- and medium-sized, professional scholarly publishers which in each country take care of the publication of rigorous scholarly contents, closer related to local topics and written in national languages. Their role is complementary to that of the large imprints and publishing groups.Giving an adequate value to channels that allow for generating societal impact, especially to scholarly books (by local, regional and national publishers).Indicators can be used properly only if they take into account the diversity of scholarly publishers and the characteristics of the publishing landscape.

An authentic flip subscription model for Africa: library as publisher service

PurposeThis paper investigates the fit for purpose of the flip model proposed by Max Planck Society and Plan S for the African environment. This flipped model is examined against the backdrop of African imperatives, which is much broader than just flipping a journal pricing model from subscription to open access. This paper also seeks a viable alternative model that supports the growth of African scholarship and the dissemination thereof.Design/methodology/approachThis paper adopts a descriptive research methodology, which allows for an in-depth analysis of a phenomenon. By using this method, this paper describes a flip model proposed by global north entities, which do not augur well for the growth of the OA movement in Africa.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that the global north centric flipped model exacerbates the inequality in the publishing landscape by further marginalizing the research voices from the global south. Africa is in dire need of an alternative that denorthernizes the publishing landscape, promote equity and equality, and is more inclusive of the research voices from Africa. South African academic libraries have demonstrated their willingness to experiment with and roll-out library publishing services. This proof of concept has been extended into a continental platform for the publication and dissemination of African scholarship.Originality/valueThis paper will be of interest to those who are grappling with viable alternatives to the current flip models, which include, inter alia, university leadership. This paper will also be of interest to global north libraries who are embarking on library publishing without the social justice obligation but are committed to the OA movement.

Evaluating equity in scholarly publishing

AbstractThe Workplace Equity Project (WE) conducted a global survey in 2018 to map the parameters that define the scholarly publishing landscape, understand the drivers for change, and recommend solutions for delivering improved outcomes. Results find that there are imbalances in diversity inherent in the workforce (96% with a Bachelor's degree or higher, 76% female, 83% heterosexual, 81% White, and 89% report no disabilities) and that outcomes diverge for respondents based on their gender and ethnicity, highlighting distinct inequities in the workplace. The leadership profile is more male (33% vs. 21%), and more White (91% vs. 81%) than the sample as a whole. Moreover, those respondents with characteristics more reflective of the leadership profile are more likely to report that they believe they are fairly compensated, recognized by the leadership, and have fair opportunities for advancement. The article recommends improvements to current practice in recruitment, sponsorship and advocacy, and staff retention to drive change towards creating a more equitable, inclusive workforce.Key points Senior leaders in scholarly publishing are more likely to be older, White males with master's degrees. The chances of attaining a senior position in scholarly publishing are higher for White males with no tertiary‐level qualifications than for Black females with postgraduate degrees. Most demographic groups (with the exception of the Black cohort) recognize their own challenges but are blind to the bias experienced by other groups. Direct line management practice defines individual experience irrespective of organizational policy. White and Asian males are more likely to be satisfied with career prospects and rewards than other groups. White women are more likely to be satisfied with their current positions than other groups. Job satisfaction in scholarly publishing varies according to ethnicity and gender, and companies have a duty to be more inclusive and diverse in their employment.

The post-Soviet publication landscape for higher education research

We studied the population of articles on higher education published in academic journals by researchers from post-Soviet countries in the last three decades. We found that post-Soviet countries contribute differently to the overall publication output, with only Russia, Lithuania, and Estonia having more than 100 articles in journals indexed in Scopus. Countries also have different publication profiles in terms of articles??? language, topics, methodology, and the balance between articles in local and international journals. In comparison with a sample of international articles, post-Soviet authors publish a substantially smaller share of research articles, and articles about teaching and learning issues, student experience and outcomes, and academic work, but a larger share of policy-related articles and articles about system policy and history. Researchers from one post-Soviet country collaborate much less within their country compared with authors from the international sample, where people collaborate more actively between institutions within a country. At the same time, scholars from different post-Soviet countries do not collaborate with each other. Our analysis demonstrates the disunity of the community of post-Soviet scholars disconnected by national borders.

Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members

AbstractPrestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.