Online Submission Systems Research Articles

Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?

As companies advance policies pertaining to social reform, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the issue of protocol, and how those objectives are being achieved, invites debate. In particular, methods that infringe on authors’ rights or freedoms need to be scrutinized. Online submission systems (OSSs) are typically – and often exclusively – used by authors for submitting their papers. The present paper documents the use of OSSs by 33 journals published by Elsevier to harvest authors’ responses to issues and policies related to DEI. This is achieved via a mandatory survey prior to accessing the OSS. Here, a major concern is the violation of authors’ rights due to the presence of a barrier to entry to the OSS, which prevents them from submitting a paper and thus contravenes a core principle of DEI. Results of an investigation into the transparency of Elsevier’s 33 journals with regard to the same DEI principles that they require of their contributing authors revealed four main findings with regard to the gender diversity of their editorial boards: 1) in only six journals (18%) did 100% of the editors indicate their gender; 2) in 14 journals (42%), the editorial board page of the journal did not carry any statistics related to gender; 3) in five journals (15%), some editors preferred not to disclose their gender (in the case of Discourse, Context & Media, 33% of the responding editors preferred not to disclose their gender); 4) in all journals for which gender statistics were supplied (19, or 58%), none of the responding editors indicated a “non-binary or gender diverse” status. This paper suggests that Elsevier needs to revisit and reform its DEI policies related to editorial boards, as well as to rethink the current mandatory survey for authors using its journals’ OSSs.

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: Observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time

Abstract Objective To determine whether researchers are submitting manuscripts and peer reviews to BMJ journals out of hours and whether this has changed over time. Design Observational study of research manuscripts and peer reviews submitted between 2012 and 2019 for which an author’s address could be geocoded. Setting Online BMJ submission systems for two large general medical journals. Main outcome measures Manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends, on national holidays, and by hour of day (to determine early mornings and late nights). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends or holidays. Results The analyses included more than 49 000 manuscript submissions and 76 000 peer reviews. Little change over time was seen in the average probability of manuscript or peer review submissions occurring on weekends or holidays. The levels of out of hours work were high, with average probabilities of 0.14 to 0.18 for work on the weekends and 0.08 to 0.13 for work on holidays compared with days in the same week. Clear and consistent differences were seen between countries. Chinese researchers most often worked at weekends and at midnight, whereas researchers in Scandinavian countries were among the most likely to submit during the week and the middle of the day. Conclusion The differences between countries that are persistent over time show that a “culture of overwork” is a literal thing, not just a figure of speech.

The Intention in Online Submission of Micro Credit

Purpose: The research aimed to identify the merchant intention in online submission microcredit through e-marketplace and formulate an online microcredit submission model. Total samples of 235 respondents were selected by convenience sampling method through an online survey of online sellers who were members of the Indonesian Online Business Association (APOI). Design/Methodology/Approach: Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the empirical data derived from surveys with the proposed hypotheses. Findings: The results showed that marketing mix gives a greater influence on intention compared to attitude toward behavior. Practical Implications: The research is one of first attempts to provide valuable insight for an overview of MSME's intention towards micro credit in the framework of planning micro-credit distribution (KUR) in Indonesia through e-commerce media. Originality/Value: The research provided an overview of the intention of online sellers / merchants to online submission systems through e-marketplace media and estimates how far is the persepsion of marketing mix in increasing intention.

Negotiating tensions around new forms of academic writing

Almost every aspect of an academic’s role involves specialised forms of writing, and the range of digital platforms used to produce this has increased. Core genres such as the journal article and monograph remain central, but the ways they are now commonly produced via file-sharing software and online submission systems are changing them. Digital media also allows academics to stay up to date with their field, connect with others, and share research with wider audiences. Furthermore, academics are increasingly expected to maintain online identities via academic networking sites, and to create and disseminate knowledge via hybrid genres such as tweets and blogs. However, these platforms also represent a potential threat to academics’ values and sense of identity.This paper reports on an ESRC funded research project investigating the writing practices of academics across different disciplines at three English universities. Through academics’ accounts of their experience with and feelings about the role of digital media in their professional writing, this paper explores the factors that complicate their engagement with new genres of writing. The findings reveal a tension between the values of social media, which see knowledge as user-generated and decentralised, and the forms of knowledge creation that are rewarded in academia.

Should copyright be transferred before a manuscript is accepted?

Academic journals that undergo a process of academic scrutiny often pass a stage of peer review and subsequent editorial approval. In a process that can take weeks or months (in some cases, even years), an author aims to satisfy the requirements of peer reviewer and editorial scrutiny that would merit publication of their work. It is customary to, in traditional, non-open access journals, to then sign over copyright to the publisher, upon which the publisher then issues a proof, and the manuscript is then published. Even though it is obvious that an author would not submit to a journal with the objective of having it rejected, the issue of the timing of copyright transfer is one which does not appear to have been discussed in the literature, possibly because the order of transfer, i.e., after acceptance of a paper for publication, seems naturally logical. With the modernization of online submission systems, the transfer of copyright tends to occur online, after acceptance. However, on occasion, some journals request the transfer of copyright before peer review and editorial processing occurs, i.e., upon the act of submission. This letter examines three cases of Springer Nature plant science journals that demand the transfer of copyright to the journal's society upon submission, in direct violation of their instructions for authors. Authors have no right to challenge this discrepancy, nor can they complete submission in accordance with the instructions for authors because they are forced to submit copyright upon submission. Not only does transfer of copyright at such an early stage of the publishing process constitute a waste of authors' time-a precious commodity in a cut-throat field of science-in the three cases indicated in this paper, they may constitute a violation of authors' rights. The ethics of this request by the journals and publisher need to be debated.

Grow Your ORCiD Profile

Do you have an ORCiD profile? You should. Do you know about ORCiD? If not, I suggest you investigate. ORCiD is the Open Researcher and Contributor ID and it provides you with a unique, personalized online profile where you can list publications and research grants and other legitimate academic outputs including blogs. The important aspect of ORCiD is that the information there can be verified; DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) and URL (Uniform Resource Locator) links to articles are provided. For most major research grant funding bodies, a link can be provided whereby the grant could be verified if necessary. ORCiD provides you with a unique number that will follow you for the remainder of your career—and, in fact, beyond (even beyond your life)—and it can also be linked to Web of Science and your ResearcherID profile and Scopus so that citations and h-index can be checked. One incidental advantage of an ORCiD profile is that it survives name changes—for example, marriage or gender realignment—and it is a great bonus for people from regions where many people have the same name; for example, in the Far East and Middle East. One recent development is the capacity to download a QR code which can be copied and pasted into CVs and PowerPoint® presentations. If you are not convinced so far and not already creating your own ORCiD profile, then read on. In addition to the benefits of having an ORCiD profile, such as a verifiable and portable list of achievements, ORCiD may soon be a common and, indeed, compulsory feature of grant applications, manuscript submissions, and promotion procedures. Already, leading publishers are requesting that you provide your ORCiD number when you create a profile on their online submission systems. To do this, the process is protected by your ORCiD password so nobody else can use this number in the submission process. Therefore, it is an unambiguous identifier for you as an author. Furthermore, it is now becoming common to see the ORCiD logo and an author's number displayed next to their name in the by-line of published articles. In the online version, this provides a link whereby the profile of the author can be checked. Grant awarding bodies are also requesting that applicants provide their ORCiD number along with project grant applications. ORCiD is easy and free to use. It takes only a few minutes to set up a profile; articles already on ResearcherID and Scopus can be transferred across, others can be searched online or entered manually. ORCiD staff are working with groups and organizations to create “macros” that allow citations to be easily imported to your profile. You can “search and link” from various databases, such as CrossRef or EuropePMC, and more are in the works. Research grants can be found using ÜberWizard for ORCID. All data can be entered manually; your employment record must be entered this way. Of course, manual entry takes more time, but the profile does not all have to be completed all at once. Finally, there is provision to write, free text, a profile about yourself, your interests and achievements. The possibilities for using ORCiD are many and only restricted by the imagination of the user. The ORCiD logo and the QR code could be a useful addition to business cards so that people can easily check your profile. ORCiD may come to replace CVs in the process of applying for jobs. Instead of the varied online profiles—or none—of academic staff, a profile picture accompanied by a link to ORCiD and one to ResearcherID could simplify these considerably and obviate the need to update them and avoid having out-of-date and incomplete information on profile pages. Amidst a plethora of online platforms for recording and sharing achievements, some of which have already proven ephemeral, ORCiD is a genuine industry-wide attempt to create an international gold standard. ORCiD is a club to which anyone can belong. I am sure that it will be considered unusual—or simply obstinate—in the near future, in academia, not to have an ORCiD profile. Finished yours yet? Roger Watson, PhD, FAAN, FRCN is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing; Editor, Nursing Open, and Professor of Nursing, University of Hull, UK. He is also a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor. Contact Roger by email: r.watson@hull.ac.uk and follow him on Twitter: @rwatson1955. His ORCiD ID is orcid.org/0000–0001–8040–7625

The delights, discomforts, and downright furies of the manuscript submission process

Key points: - Instructions to authors about submitting papers for publication vary hugely – from none at all to whole handbooks. - Online submission systems have not reduced the complexity of submission and may have increased the work of authors. - Electronic submission processes do not appear to have been adequately ‘road tested’ with authors. - Some publishers are introducing more flexible submission rules that may help authors.

ON THE ABUSE OF ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEMS, FAKE PEER REVIEWS AND EDITOR-CREATED ACCOUNTS

Many journals and publishers employ online submission systems (OSSs) to process manuscripts. In some cases, one “template” format exists, but it is then molded slightly to suit the specific needs of each journal, a decision made by the editor-in-chief or editors. In the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of cases in which OSSs have been abused, mostly by the authorship, either through the creation of fake identities or the use of false e-mail accounts. Although the abusive or fraudulent authors are at fault in such cases, the fact that such cases remained undetected for so long is of concern. Moreover, the current OSSs are imperfect, have security issues and may not be able to detect false information, except through post-submission verification. Sting operations, which involve the submission of false manuscripts with false identities and false affiliations, are no less unethical, and those who abuse the publishing protocol deserve to be as reprimanded as those who abuse OSSs. Finally, I question the ethics of editors or publishers creating OSS accounts on behalf of reviewers prior to obtaining their explicit permission. doi: 10.5294/pebi.2016.20.2.3

What's in a name, anyway?

What's in a name, anyway?

The obstacles facing scientific and medical publishing in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESMedical and scientific publishing in Saudi Arabia has flourished in the last ten years. Such a form of publishing faces its own obstacles and the experience of the Annals of Saudi Medicine if analyzed can delineate such obstacles. The aim of this study is to identify the workflow obstacles facing the Annals of Saudi Medicine.METHODSRoot-cause analysis of the workflow process and output from submission till publication for the period January 2012–December 2013. Key performance indicators were developed and analyzed after being extracted from the online submission system.RESULTSFor the period of the study, 1058 manuscripts were received annually. These manuscripts originated in descending order from: Saudi Arabia 34%, Turkey 16%, India 12%, China 8% and Western Countries 3%. Categories of the submissions were: original articles 53%, case reports 31% and others 16%. Only 103 of the submissions were accepted annually for publication. Out of 7,709 requests to review a manuscript, only 1,579 (20%) resulted in a review. Out of a sample of 744 rated reviews, only 10% were poor in quality. The average turnaround time for review was 79 days. The main reason for the delay was the low response of the reviewers.CONCLUSIONThe Annals of Saudi Medicine is a regional or continental journal with substantial submissions as case reports. This affected its Impact Factor and Hirsch Index. Moreover, the review process is delayed due to the poor response of the reviewers.

Stroke—call for papers

In the USA, someone has a stroke every 40 seconds or so, and stroke is a leading cause of death in most countries. Although improved management has reduced mortality in developed countries, disability and health-care costs remain substantial. Expansion of the obesity map to include developing countries, and an elevated risk of stroke in South Asian men, for example, mean that the need for prevention and treatment of stroke can only increase. To coincide with the 20th European Stroke Con ference in Hamburg, Germany, on May 24–27, 2010, The Lancet and The Lancet Neurology invite submissions of highquality research on the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke. Randomised trials are especially welcome, but we also encourage submission of other studies with the potential to change practice. All articles should be submitted via the journals’ online submission systems, with a covering note stating that the submission is in response to this call, and specifying whether the article should be considered by one or both journals. We look forward to reading your work, which must be submitted by Feb 21, 2011. Please let us know about studies to be presented at the conference, so that simultaneous electronic publication can be planned.

You use APA and I use AMA

When I was in college, we all used Turabian (1961) and as far as we knew, there were no other choices for referencing systems. Then came graduate school and the confusion began. I was introduced to APA style (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association) and required to master another system. Now we authors and editors have a virtual alphabet soup to master: APA (2010), AMA (American Medical Association, 2007), MLA (Gibaldi, 2009), Chicago Style also referred to as Turabian (2007), and Harvard Style (2009), as well as the Council of Science Editors Style Manual (2009), and the National Library of Medicine (2009) Index Medicus guide to journal title abbreviations. The experts in professional organizations and academic institutions preparing these guidelines insist on issuing new editions at about the time we think we might have mastered at least one style. To make matters even more confusing, among the many journals for which the primary target audience is nurses, there is no consistency in editorial requirements for manuscript preparation and referencing styles. When authors have manuscripts rejected, rewriting might require a change in writing and referencing style, as well as attention to the comments and suggestions of the editor and reviewers. For nurse authors and editors, authors in particular, the existence of several sets of guidelines for format and referencing can be enough to stifle any dreams they might have had of writing for publication. As a mentor to many neophyte authors, I have found that these would-be authors sometimes view author guidelines and style requirements as insurmountable barriers. New authors find it daunting enough to consider writing for publication, never mind having to wade through a one to three inch thick style manual for the subtleties and vagaries of some committee's idea of what a particular style should look like. Does the period come before or after the quotation marks? Should the author use one space or two after a comma, period, or question mark? If there are more than six authors, should the author list all six, use et al. (noting that only al. requires a period) and under what circumstances does the author apply the rule for listing all authors? In the text, in the reference list only, in both, or neither? What style requires first person, active voice, passive voice, forbids or permits anthropomorphisms, and if so, under what circumstances? By now readers are probably asking “so what?” The confusion wrought by these very disparate style manuals underscores our responsibility if not obligation as editors and/or experienced authors to provide mentorship to new and struggling nurse authors, as well as students as early on in their careers as possible. Nurses who are mentored so they can successfully navigate the intricacies of the various style manuals may be more likely to consider careers as faculty members, clinical leaders, or other positions whose expectations include publishing. In my ideal world, we as editors and seasoned authors might attempt to reach consensus on one style manual for all publications whose primary target is nurses, or at most two: one for historical works and another for articles on clinical, educational, and research topics. Such consensus building would also have to include publishing companies whose audiences might be much broader than just nurses. Each publishing company is invested in the style it requires because of on-line submission, review, and production systems. Programmers and other information technology experts have replaced production specialists who translated manuscript pages produced on typewriters into printed and bound pages. I can only imagine what Edith Patton (Pat) Lewis would have to say about this in one of her inimitable editorials. (Lewis, 1980). Joellen W. Hawkins, RN, WHNP-BC, PhD, FAAN, FAANP is Professor Emeritus at William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Nursing Editor of Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, and Writer in Residence at Simmons College, Nursing Department in Boston MA.

Online Review of Manuscripts: More haste, less speed?

With the modern culture of online submission and review systems, are peer reviewers being exploited and undervalued? What was once a simple process of accepting to review a paper, receiving it in the mail, and, eventually, returning it to the editor now requires passwords, usernames, printing off a hard copy, electronic reminders, and, tediously, entering all review comments electronically. Why not just say no? The hard work of the review process should be judging the paper, not fighting the program.

Online Review of Manuscripts: More haste, less speed?

With the modern culture of online submission and review systems, are peer reviewers being exploited and undervalued? What was once a simple process of accepting to review a paper, receiving it in the mail, and, eventually, returning it to the editor now requires passwords, usernames, printing off a hard copy, electronic reminders, and, tediously, entering all review comments electronically. Why not just say no? The hard work of the review process should be judging the paper, not fighting the program.

The Politics of Open-Access Publishing: <i>M/C Journal</i>, Public Intellectualism, and Academic Discourses of Legitimacy

This article investigates the discourses of academic legitimacy that surround the production, consumption, and accreditation of online scholarship. Using the web-based media and cultural studies journal (http://journal.media-culture.org.au) as a case study, it examines how online scholarly journals often position themselves as occupying a space between the academic and the popular and as having a functional advantage over print-based media in promoting a spirit of public intellectualism. The current research agenda of both government and academe prioritises academic research that is efficient, self-promoting, and relevant to the public. Yet, although the cost-effectiveness and public-intellectual focus of online scholarship speak to these research priorities, online journals such as M/C Journal have occupied, and continue to occupy, an unstable position in relation to the perceived academic legitimacy of their content. Although some online scholarly journals have achieved a limited form of recognition within a system of accreditation that still privileges print-based scholarship, I argue that this, nevertheless, points to the fact that traditional textual notions of legitimate academic work continue to pervade the research agenda of an academe that increasingly promotes flexible delivery of teaching and online research initiatives.

Why are the Acta Neuropathologica so fast, with a mean time from submission to first decision of 16 days?

Why are the Acta Neuropathologica so fast, with a mean time from submission to first decision of 16 days?

Challenges from the digital revolution

We note with interest the recent editorial (January 2006 JRSM1) and letter (January 2006 JRSM2). They reflect facets of the massive growth in communications technology in healthcare. The doctor-patient relationship has been affected by the information available on the Internet and the presence of self-help groups and web sites moderated by expert patients.3 Geographical—but not linguistic—barriers are becoming irrelevant. Another form of telephone consultation1 of value is the nurse-lead telephone help lines run for patients with chronic conditions by centres of excellence—for instance, the Arthritis Centre, Northwick Park Hospital and the Scleroderma Centre at the Royal Free Hospital, London. Outsourcing2 is not restricted to moving tasks to lower cost centres: the opposite may occur. For example, on-line journal submission systems have moved tedious data entry away from journals' editorial staff to the submitting authors. Similarly, digital cameras, and easy-to-use software, have allowed physicians to subsume the task of medical photography—albeit at lower quality than qualified medical photographers, who are also scrupulous in obtaining consent and meeting the needs of data protection. Regretfully, medical photography departments are being closed. The availability of mobile phones with integral digital cameras allows physicians to capture ephemeral signs at the bedside or in the clinic. For instance, a camera phone was used by one of us to acquire an image of a transient rash that allowed the diagnosis of adult onset Still's disease to be reached. But the use of mobile phones in hospitals remains contentious as they may affect medical equipment.4 Nevertheless, the widespread ownership and reliance on mobile phones makes blanket bans of their use in hospitals unenforceable. We expect the use of telecommunications in healthcare to expand. It is clear, however, that innovation should be carefully risk assessed and monitored lest the law of unexpected (and unwanted) consequences be invoked.

The 2005 Dolph Adams awards and the state of the Journal of Leukocyte Biology

The 2005 Dolph Adams awards and the state of the <i>Journal of Leukocyte Biology</i>

Online submission and peer‐review systems

ABSTRACTWe report on a research study commissioned by ALPSP into the current status of online submission and peer‐review systems, the perceptions of these by authors, referees and editors, and the impact of their introduction on journals.

ACS PARAGON SYSTEM

SUBMITTING A MANUSCRIPT TO a journal can be a tedious, paper-intensive process. As a result, many scientists are turning to submitting their manuscripts online. Unfortunately, online submission systems are typically more utilitarian than user friendly. That is, until now. The American Chemical Society, one of the world's premier scientific journal publishers, has recently introduced a new online submission system designed to meet the needs of the user. The ACS Paragon System, as it is called, consolidates organization of the manuscript submission process, allowing users to track each of their manuscripts submitted online to ACS journals all the way through publication using a single password-protected home page. The Paragon System is the result of careful planning by ACS to ease submissions to more than 20 of its peer-reviewed journals. The secure system was designed with input from ACS authors, reviewers, and journal editors from around the world and allows each journal to tailor its submission ...