Journal Subscriptions Research Articles

The costs of open access publication

This article explores the financial dynamics of open access (OA) publication in Catalan universities by combining four data sources: publication data coupled with article processing charge (APC) estimates; information on journal subscriptions, transformative agreements and APC payments made by universities; acknowledgements of APC funding sources in OA scholarly outputs; and a survey of authors. The findings reveal a consistent increase in OA publication across Catalan universities, with 60% of the articles indexed in the Web of Science being published in either gold or hybrid OA in 2022. In parallel, investment in the research publishing system shows an upward trend. Resources allocated to journal subscription licenses have been redirected towards transformative agreements, leading to a rise in hybrid OA publications. Additional budget allocations have been made to accommodate APCs for gold OA journals. Authors employ varied funding sources for gold and hybrid OA, with university funding programmes and research grants commonly facilitating gold OA, while transformative agreements often support hybrid OA. Authors associated with Catalan universities frequently benefit from funding schemes and transformative agreements that are accessible to their coauthors. However, survey responses underscore the multifaceted nature of researchers’ financial support, including personal assets and waivers. Authors express frustration with the evolving OA landscape, particularly concerning the exorbitant publication fees. Nevertheless, the allure of high-impact journals and expedited peer review processes continues to incentivize authors towards gold OA. Researchers voice concerns regarding the lack of equitable funding programmes and potential conflicts of interest within gold OA models, which signals the risk of compromising peer review integrity to prioritize profits. This study underscores the need for further research to deepen our understanding of scholarly publishing expenditure and inform strategies for fostering a sustainable, equitable OA ecosystem.

Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting

BackgroundReporting conflicts of interest (COI) and sources of sponsorship are of paramount importance in adequately interpreting the results of systematic reviews. Some evidence suggests that there is an influence of COI and sponsorship on the study results.The objectives of this meta-research study were twofold: (a) to assess the reporting of COI and sponsorship statements in systematic reviews published in dentistry in three sources (abstract, journal’s website and article’s full text) and (b) to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and reporting of COI.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for dental systematic reviews published from database inception to June 2023. We assessed how COI and sponsorship statements were reported in the three sources. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the reporting of COI.ResultsWe assessed 924 abstracts published in PubMed and on the corresponding journals´ websites. Similarly, full texts associated with the 924 abstracts were also assessed. A total of 639 (69%) and 795 (88%) studies had no statement of COI in the abstracts on PubMed and the journal’s website, respectively. In contrast, a COI statement was reported in 801 (87%) full texts. Sponsorship statements were not reported in 911 (99%) and 847 (93%) abstracts published in PubMed and a journal´s website, respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the full-text articles (N = 607) included sponsorship statements. Journal access was significantly associated with COI statement reporting in all three sources. Open-access journals have significantly higher odds to report COI in PubMed and full-texts, while have significantly lower odds to report COI in the websites, compared with subscription or hybrid journals. type was significantly associated with COI statement reporting on the journal’s website and in the full text. Review registration based on the full text and the number of authors were significantly associated with COI statement reporting in PubMed and in the full texts. Several other variables were found to be significantly associated with COI statement reporting in one of the three sources.ConclusionsCOI and sponsorship statements seem to be underreported in the abstracts and homepage of the journals, compared to the full-texts. These results were particularly more pronounced in abstracts published in both the PubMed database and the journals’ websites. Several characteristics of systematic reviews were associated with COI statement reporting.

Methodological quality of clinical research in endodontics: A cross-sectional comparison between open access and traditional subscription-based journals

Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing provides the benefits of increased visibility, accessibility, and impact of research findings. Despite the rapidly growing number of OA journals in dentistry, there are rising concerns about their quality. Our aim is to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical endodontic studies published in OA journals and to compare them to traditional subscription (TS) journals from January 2010 to December 2022. Materials and Methods: Clinical endodontic studies published in four journals, two from OA and two from TS categories were included in this review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies instrument for nonrandomized studies. Data were analyzed with SPSS, utilizing independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for statistical comparisons. Results: A total of 80 articles were included, 40 from each OA and TS journals. The majority of research articles originated from Asia (48.7%) and were primarily focused on endodontic outcomes (47.5%). A significant difference in methodological quality was noted between TS and OA journals (t-test, P = 0.022). TS journals exhibited a higher mean methodological quality score of 1.64 (±0.30) compared to 1.49 (±0.27) of OA journals. Variance in methodological quality scores among journals was also statistically significant (ANOVA, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Clinical studies published in TS journals had higher methodological quality compared to those published in OA journals. Enhancements in peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in OA publications in endodontics.

Publications in Plastic Surgery and Reconstruction: A Review from a Developing Country, Sudan.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery services need to be improved in developing African countries. Research and article publications from those countries are limited. This review was conducted to identify published articles from Sudan in the area of plastic and reconstructive surgery. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were used for the preparation of this systematic review. A comprehensive systematic search was performed using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases. Articles published in Sudan, specifically in the area of plastic and reconstructive surgery, and written in English were included in this review. The total number of articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was 23. The articles were written from 1969 to 2023. Only two articles were published in the 20th century. The most common study type was a retrospective study of eight articles, and the most common study area was Khartoum Teaching Hospital. Regarding the publishing journals, the number of subscription journals was six (30%), whereas open access was 17 (70%). This review demonstrates the lack of articles published on plastic surgery in Sudan. Further investigation is needed to determine the challenges and problems associated with possible clarifications.

Shifting the Collection Development Mindset: Moving from Traditional Journal Subscriptions to Transformative Agreements

Shifting the Collection Development Mindset: Moving from Traditional Journal Subscriptions to Transformative Agreements

Cosmetic injectables in dental practice: legal aspects in the Netherlands

A recent survey indicates 49% of this journal's subscribers endorse the administration of cosmetic injectables by properly trained dentists. Given the surging demand for cosmetic treatments, it's essential to establish clear guidelines and conventions defining the roles of the various healthcare professionals in various situations. There is, however, considerable discussion still and from a legal standpoint, the role of dentists within cosmetic medicine remains ambiguous. Under the Dutch Individual Healthcare Professions Act (Wet BIG), dentists are authorized to administer cosmetic injectables exclusively for dental purposes. However, based on the content of current dental training, one might argue that dentists' authorization could be extended to include facial injectable treatments in the entire face, in future. Presently, it is prudent for general practice dentists to abstain from cosmetic procedures with cosmetic injectables without a specific (aesthetic) dental objective.

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Despite its prominent position as one of the leading for-profit scholarly publishers of subscription and open access (OA) journals, and its membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Springer Nature can be criticized for taking a vague approach in its editorial policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing. While cautioning authors and/or editors about the citation of papers that are published in “predatory” journals, the advice presented in the policies itself is flawed due its limitation to OA journals – thus apparently excluding the possibility that subscription journals might also be “predatory” and failing to specify precisely which journals authors and editors should be careful of, i.e., no source for the “predatory” definition of OA journals is indicated. Moreover, this vague set of policies does not have a publication date, nor is any authorship specified. The opacity of these aspects of these editorial policies limits their usefulness and weakens their objectives, namely in ostensibly offering scholarly advice to protect editors and authors. I argue that the Springer Nature policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing as they currently stand are not useful, and if left unchanged, can be a source of confusion or error for authors and editors of Springer Nature journals. In this connection, the identified risk is that if the poor advice indicated in those policies is heeded, it may encourage abuse, insults and/or indiscriminate profiling of academics, including those associated with Springer Nature journals. While assuming Springer Nature’s genuine intention to alert editors and authors against citing papers published in suspect scholarly venues, I argue that this editorial set of policies should either be rewritten to rely on clearer parameters, including a definitive list of journals for which “predatory” criteria have been defined, or abandoned as they are overly broad. The criticism is aimed at stimulating a discussion among other editors and publishers, especially COPE members.

Survey of physician journal subscription experiences: Environmental packaging

Survey of physician journal subscription experiences: Environmental packaging

Assessing the Value of Subscription Journal Packages and Open Access Journal Articles in a Community College Context

Introduction: Academic libraries are facing two trends: the rising cost of journal subscriptions—the ongoing ‘serials crisis’—and the increasing availability of scholarly journal articles through free, open access channels. Methods: This study analyzed the bibliographies from 116 research projects created by students across disciplines at a small community college, and classified citations to journal articles based on the simplest way students could have accessed them. Results: more than 60% of the scholarly journal articles that students used are available to them for free, while an additional 18% are available through state-sponsored database subscriptions available to any Massachusetts resident. Only 17% of the journal articles used were available to students solely through the library’s database packages, and more than half of those articles were used by students in the ADN nursing program. Discussion: These findings call into question the value of expensive subscription databases to community college libraries and suggest a pattern of diminishing return on investment and value. The trend towards cancellation of ‘big deal’ journal packages at large institutions addresses similar concerns, though the dynamics are somewhat different at small institutions. Conclusion: The paper concludes by suggesting some steps that small academic libraries might take to adapt to this changing publishing environment, in the areas of collection development and information literacy instruction, in order to better serve students.

COUNTER in context: a case study on journal package usage

This study assesses electronic journal usage for subscription packages and discusses the challenges for librarians to interpret COUNTER data accurately. By correlating usage and holding data from two different types of vendor, COUNTER 5 Title Master Report and Electronic Holdings Report, the authors were able to review journal usage in a larger context and gain insights into how usage was affected by other factors, such as journal access models and vendor platform design. While the findings showed a high percentage of overall usage for subscription journals, one surprising result was the usage of non-subscribed journal titles in all COUNTER metrics.

The peer review process: A survey among scientists in radiology

PurposeTo map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process. MethodA survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals. Results244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal. ConclusionPublishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.

A decade of changes in OA and non-OA journal publication and production

The objective of this study was to explore the trends in the publication and production of open access (OA) and non-OA journals and articles over the last decade. Non-OA journals include subscription and hybrid journals, the articles of which cannot be freely accessed by researchers. To conduct this study, we used SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) data from 2011 to 2021. In analyzing the SJR data, we categorized publishers by the number of journals and articles published. The results showed the following: (a) although the number of OA journals has increased rapidly between 2011 and 2021, their share of total publications is still significantly lower than that of non-OA journals; (b) between 2011 and 2021, the number of publishers of non-OA journals had decreased slightly, while the number of OA journal publishers has increased rapidly; (c) publishers of all sizes increased the production of OA journal articles between 2011 and 2021, but the share of top publishers increased the most; and (d) MDPI, as a born-OA publisher, has become a global leader in OA journal article publishing in recent years.

Scholarly Community towards Open Source

Scholarly communities are increasingly adopting open source practices in various areas including software, publishing and data analysis. The focus of this article is on the shift towards open source publication, specifically open access publication. Open access publication refers to the practice of making research articles and other scientific outputs freely available to the public through open access repositories or open-access journals. This practice has many benefits including increased visibility, improved access, enhanced collaboration, greater accountability, enhanced education and public understanding. The move towards open access has been driven by various factors including the proliferation of the internet, funder and policymaker requirements, concerns about high journal subscription costs and the availability of open access publishing platforms. Challenges to the adoption of open access include the need for a cultural shift and the potential for loss of income for some publishers. Despite these challenges, open access has the potential to transform the way that research is shared and disseminated, leading to greater impact and collaboration in the scientific community.

Paid publishers business or Open access: Is the solution worse or better than the problem?

The business model of paid publishers for scientific journals has been criticized for various reasons, including the potential for financial gain to take precedence over the advancement of science. Some argue that this model restricts access to critical scientific research, particularly for those who cannot afford expensive journal subscriptions, hindering the progress of science.

Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a new policy requiring that all federally funded scholarly research be accessible to the public immediately upon publication. While this open access policy will ultimately benefit society by increasing the availability of data and research outputs, it could place a heavy burden on researchers due to the relatively high cost of open access alongside an academic culture that tends to favor publishing in high impact subscription journals. We examine the complexities of the traditional publishing landscape and offer recommendations for agencies, universities, and publishers to mitigate the impacts on researchers. Specifically, we recommend a short-term increase in funding to cover higher publishing costs, but contributions from all stakeholders are needed to facilitate a long-term solution.

Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the changes that occurred in journal and article publishing during the noncontact period that started in 2020 due to COVID-19.Methods: The integrated journal list in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017–2021 and the search results of Web of Science were analyzed using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. The articles, citations, impact factor (IF), publishers, open access (OA) status, and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were investigated using the data.Results: The CAGRs of articles, citations, and IFs in JCR journals increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the increase in OA articles was accompanied by a decreasing share of subscription articles. The top 20 journals in JCR-SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), based on the number of articles, accepted OA policies and showed a strong influence, accounting for 7% to 9% of all articles. MDPI and Frontiers were OA publishers included among the top 10 publishers. Large publishers maintained their competitiveness through mergers and acquisitions with OA publishers. Due to the rapid distribution of OA and early access articles as part of the international response to overcome COVID-19, the CAGRs of citations and IFs increased more than that of articles, and the publication and use of journal articles have become more active.Conclusion: The publication and use trends in JCR journals analyzed herein will provide useful information for researchers’ selection of journals for article submission, analyses of research performance, and libraries’ journal subscription contracts.

An Exploratory Study of Medical Journal's Twitter Use: Metadata, Networks, and Content Analyses.

An increasing number of medical journals are using social media to promote themselves and communicate with their readers. However, little is known about how medical journals use Twitter and what their social media management strategies are. This study aimed to understand how medical journals use Twitter from a global standpoint. We conducted a broad, in-depth analysis of all the available Twitter accounts of medical journals indexed by major indexing services, with a particular focus on their social networks and content. The Twitter profiles and metadata of medical journals were analyzed along with the social networks on their Twitter accounts. The results showed that overall, publishers used different strategies regarding Twitter adoption, Twitter use patterns, and their subsequent decisions. The following specific findings were noted: journals with Twitter accounts had a significantly higher number of publications and a greater impact than their counterparts; subscription journals had a slightly higher Twitter adoption rate (2%) than open access journals; journals with higher impact had more followers; and prestigious journals rarely followed other lesser-known journals on social media. In addition, an in-depth analysis of 2000 randomly selected tweets from 4 prestigious journals revealed that The Lancet had dedicated considerable effort to communicating with people about health information and fulfilling its social responsibility by organizing committees and activities to engage with a broad range of health-related issues; The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association focused on promoting research articles and attempting to maximize the visibility of their research articles; and the British Medical Journal provided copious amounts of health information and discussed various health-related social problems to increase social awareness of the field of medicine. Our study used various perspectives to investigate how medical journals use Twitter and explored the Twitter management strategies of 4 of the most prestigious journals. Our study provides a detailed understanding of medical journals' use of Twitter from various perspectives and can help publishers, journals, and researchers to better use Twitter for their respective purposes.

The benefits of publishing in society‐owned scientific journals

The benefits of publishing in society‐owned scientific journals

Anesthesiology 2023: Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

Anesthesiology 2023: Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

Do open-access dermatology articles have higher citation counts than those with subscription-based access?

Open-access (OA) publishing is increasingly prevalent in dermatology, and many journals now offer hybrid options, including conventional (subscription-based access [SA]) publishing or OA (with an author publishing charge) in a subscription journal. OA publishing has been noted in many disciplines, but this has been rarely studied in dermatology. Using the Clarivate Journal Citation Report, we compiled a list of English-language dermatology hybrid OA journals containing more than 5% OA articles. We sampled any OA review or original research article in 4 issues from 2018 to 2019 and matched an equal number of SA articles. Citation count, citation count excluding self-citations and view counts found using Scopus and Altmetrics score were recorded for each article. Statistical analyses were performed using logistic and negative binomial models using R software. Twenty-seven hybrid dermatology journals were found, and 538 articles were sampled (269 OA, 269 SA). For both original research and review articles, OA articles had significantly higher mean citation counts (mean 13.2, standard deviation [SD] 17.0) compared to SA articles (mean 7.9, SD 8.8) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < .001) including when adjusted for time from publication. Original research OA articles had significantly higher citation counts than original research SA articles (excluding self-citations; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .003), and review articles also had OA citation advantage than review SA articles (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .008). There was, however, no significant difference in citation counts between review articles and original research articles (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.19-5.31; P = 1.000). There was no significant difference seen in view counts (OA: mean±SD 17.7±10.8; SA: mean±SD 17.1±12.4) and Altmetric score (OA: mean±SD 13.2±47.8; SA: mean±SD 6.3±25.0) between OA and SA articles. Potential confounders included the fact that more OA articles were published in Europe than in Asia, and pharmaceutical-funded articles were more likely to be published OA. We noted a higher citation count for OA articles than SA articles in dermatology hybrid journals. However, dermatology researchers should take into account confounding factors when deciding whether to increase the impact of their work by selecting OA over SA publishing.