NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.