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.

The Economics of Scientific Publishing.

The peculiar nature of scientific publishing has allowed for a high degree of market concentration and a non-collusive oligopoly. The non-substitutable characteristic of scientific journals has facilitated an environment of market concentration. Acquisition of journals on a capabilities-based approach has seen market concentration increase in favor of a small group of dominant publishers. The digital era of scientific publishing has accelerated concentration. Competition laws have failed to prevent anti-competitive practices. The need for government intervention is debated. The definition of scientific publishing as a public good is evaluated to determine the need for intervention. Policy implications are suggested to increase competitiveness in the short-run and present prestige-maintaining alternatives in the long run. A fundamental change in scientific publishing is required to enable socially efficient and equitable access for wider society's benefit.

Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type.

This study examines the dissemination of trial results by data source (ie, ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed) and funder type (ie, industry and nonindustry).

JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022.

This Medical News article is our annual roundup of the top-viewed articles from all JAMA Network journals.

Neurosurgical Publication-Should We Publish at Any Cost? An In-Depth Analysis of Costs Incurred in Publication.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent paradigm shift in neurosurgical publications, open access (OA) publishing is burgeoning along with traditional publishing methods. We aimed to explore costs of publication across 53 journals. METHODS: We identified 53 journals publishing neurosurgical work. Journal type, submission and open access charges, color print fees, impact indicators, publisher, and subscription prices were obtained from journal and publisher websites. Costs were unified in U.S. dollars. Mean prices per journal were used to equilibrate membership and subscription discounts. Correlations were performed using Spearman ρ (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of 53 journals, 12 were OA only, 40 were hybrid, and 1 was traditional. Submission costs were provided by 22 and 43 journals, respectively, by the end of phase 1 and 2 (prices always for phase 2: 26 free of charge, 4 <$500, and 1 <$1000). Median OA charge was $3286 (49 journals; range, $0-$7827). Of 53 journals, 36 did not list print fees for color figures (29 in phase 2). Median fee estimate per figure was $422 (range, $25-$1060). Median personal subscription for 1 year was $344 (range, $60-$1158; 48 journals). Median institutional subscription for 1 year was $2082 (range, $38-$5510; 34 journals). There was a mild positive correlation between Journal Impact Factor and OA fees (ρ = 0.287, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of easily accessible information about neurosurgical publications, such as submission costs or OA charges, creates an unnecessary hurdle and should be remedied. Publishing in neurosurgery should be a positive learning experience, and cost should not be a limiting factor.