Graphical integrity issues in open access publications: Detection and patterns of proportional ink violations.

Academic graphs are essential for communicating complex scientific ideas and results. To ensure that these graphs truthfully reflect underlying data and relationships, visualization researchers have proposed several principles to guide the graph creation process. However, the extent of violations of these principles in academic publications is unknown. In this work, we develop a deep learning-based method to accurately measure violations of the proportional ink principle (AUC = 0.917), which states that the size of shaded areas in graphs should be consistent with their corresponding quantities. We apply our method to analyze a large sample of bar charts contained in 300K figures from open access publications. Our results estimate that 5% of bar charts contain proportional ink violations. Further analysis reveals that these graphical integrity issues are significantly more prevalent in some research fields, such as psychology and computer science, and some regions of the globe. Additionally, we find no temporal and seniority trends in violations. Finally, apart from openly releasing our large annotated dataset and method, we discuss how computational research integrity could be part of peer-review and the publication processes.

Practical Advice for South Korean Medical Researchers Regarding Open-Access and Predatory Journals.

In recent decades, the volume of scholarly literature worldwide has increased significantly, and open-access publishing has become commonplace. These changes are even more dominant in South Korea. Comparing the periods of 1981-2000 and 2001-2020, the number of medical articles produced in Korea increased by 16.8 times on the Web of Science platform (13,223 to 222,771 papers). Before 1990, almost no open-access articles were produced in South Korea, but in the last 10 years open-access publications came to account for almost 40% of all South Korean publications on Web of Science. Along with the expansion of literature and the development of open-access publishing, predatory journals that seek profit without conducting quality assurance have appeared and undermined the academic corpus. In this rapidly changing environment, medical researchers have begun contemplating publication standards. In this article, recent trends in academic publishing are examined from international and South Korean perspectives, and the significance of open-access publishing and recent changes are discussed. Practical methods that can be used to select legitimate publishers, including open-access journals, and identify predatory journals are also discussed.

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action.

PURPOSE: To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work. DESIGN: Descriptive editorial article. METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic. RESULTS: Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific world, on funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties. CONCLUSION: We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.

Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists.

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.

Problems With Open Access Publishing in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE. Open access publishing has grown exponentially and can be a means of increasing availability of scientific knowledge to readers who cannot afford to pay for access. This article discusses problems that can occur with open access and offers suggestions for ameliorating the problems facing radiology research because of poor-quality journals. CONCLUSION. Open access literature has loosed an avalanche of information into the radiology world, much of which has not been validated by careful peer review. To maintain academic integrity and serve our colleagues and patients, radiologists need to guard against shoddy science published in deceptive journals.

Periodic Upheavals in the Universe of Periodicals.

The universe of scientific periodicals is subject to a constant series of alterations. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently has found it necessary to remove some of its reviewers because they either failed to disclose key ties or they breached confidentiality. Gender representation in academia influences research productivity and impact from the perspective of sustainability in women's careers on campuses. A proposed Plan S in the context of open-access publications is a robust topic that continues to attract interest among major journals. More than 20 funders have joined the initiative, which is expected to be launched in 2021. The existence and growth in the number of predatory journals is of much concern. Some observations on each of these matters are as follows.

Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals. METHODS: A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents' ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty. RESULTS: A total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term "predatory OA journal." Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391). CONCLUSIONS: Survey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.

An insight into predatory journals.

The impact of scholarly journals has increased with invent of Internet due to improved access, faster dissemination, and ease of searching a variety of publications. With the increasing trend of research, open access (OA) publishing has increased intensely over the last few years. The core intent of OA is faster dissemination of research by making it available to readers free of cost. However, some publishers exploited this novel idea for their own benefit. Beall termed them as predatory publishers/journals. In this article, authors have made efforts to understand the predatory publishers/journal, reasons behind their upsurge, their modus operandi, their common targets, and the points which will help readers to identify them. The aim of this article is to expose facts behind the predatory journal and to create awareness among not only budding researchers but also faculty members, authors, and editors about the threat predatory journals carry toward scientific world and to their own curricula.

Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals.

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.