Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing.

Science and science reporting are under threat. Knowingly or not, researchers and clinicians are part of this debacle. This is not due so much to the notorious replication crisis, as to our acceptance of lowering common morality for personal gains, including the widespread, deprecable phenomenon of predatory publishing. Rather than fiercefully countering this loathsome practice, academics are accepting, often supporting a masquerade solution: paying several thousand dollars to publish for all their own papers. This new policy will create a disparity across richer and poorer disciplines; will result in concentrating even more in the hands of large, rich, Western institutions, also penalising younger researchers; will kill observational studies and exploratory research; and will make disseminating science depending more on finances than on quality. This article calls for the full awareness of the academic community on the risks of the current situation in scientific publishing.

A ciência e os relatórios científicos estão ameaçados. Conscientemente ou não, pesquisadores e médicos fazem parte desse desastre. Isso não se deve tanto à notória crise de replicação, mas à nossa aceitação de rebaixar a moralidade comum para ganhos pessoais, incluindo o fenômeno generalizado e depreciável da publicação predatória. Em vez de combater ferozmente essa prática repugnante, os acadêmicos estão aceitando, muitas vezes até apoiando uma solução de disfarce: pagar vários milhares de dólares para publicar seus próprios artigos. Essa nova política criará uma disparidade entre as disciplinas mais ricas e mais pobres, resultará na concentração ainda maior nas mãos de grandes e ricas instituições ocidentais, penalizando também os pesquisadores mais jovens; matará os estudos observacionais e a pesquisa exploratória e fará com que a divulgação científica dependa mais das finanças do que da qualidade. Este artigo apela à plena consciência da comunidade acadêmica sobre os riscos da situação atual da publicação científica.

Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing / Integridade individual e moralidade pública na publicação científica

ABSTRACT. Science and science reporting are under threat. Knowingly or not, researchers and clinicians are part of this debacle. This is not due so much to the notorious replication crisis, as to our acceptance of lowering common morality for personal gains, including the widespread, deprecable phenomenon of predatory publishing. Rather than fiercefully countering this loathsome practice, academics are accepting, often supporting a masquerade solution: paying several thousand dollars to publish for all their own papers. This new policy will create a disparity across richer and poorer disciplines; will result in concentrating even more in the hands of large, rich, Western institutions, also penalising younger researchers; will kill observational studies and exploratory research; and will make disseminating science depending more on finances than on quality. This article calls for the full awareness of the academic community on the risks of the current situation in scientific publishing.

RESUMO. A ciência e os relatórios científicos estão ameaçados. Conscientemente ou não, pesquisadores e médicos fazem parte desse desastre. Isso não se deve tanto à notória crise de replicação, mas à nossa aceitação de rebaixar a moralidade comum para ganhos pessoais, incluindo o fenômeno generalizado e depreciável da publicação predatória. Em vez de combater ferozmente essa prática repugnante, os acadêmicos estão aceitando, muitas vezes até apoiando uma solução de disfarce: pagar vários milhares de dólares para publicar seus próprios artigos. Essa nova política criará uma disparidade entre as disciplinas mais ricas e mais pobres, resultará na concentração ainda maior nas mãos de grandes e ricas instituições ocidentais, penalizando também os pesquisadores mais jovens; matará os estudos observacionais e a pesquisa exploratória e fará com que a divulgação científica dependa mais das finanças do que da qualidade. Este artigo apela à plena consciência da comunidade acadêmica sobre os riscos da situação atual da publicação científica.

BJPsych Open fifth anniversary editorial: history, accomplishments, trajectory and passion.

BJPsych Open has come of age. This editorial celebrates the journal's fifth anniversary by reviewing the history of BJPsych Open, what we have accomplished, where we strive to go (our planned trajectory) and the passion of being an Editor-in-Chief.

How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S.

Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA. This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S. We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project. We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream. We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit. Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.

Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020).

There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, we feel that many of the arguments misrepresent critical elements of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors describe OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially through the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that 'green OA' self-archiving options alleviate virtually all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred 'routes' to OA as stated by both institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the "global south" also largely fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.

Response to comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Pourret et al.

We have read the response to our Discussion about Open Access and predatory journals entitle Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences. The purpose of a Discussion in STOTEN is to inspire for debating and we therefore thank Pourret et al. (2020) for their response to our Discussion about Open Access, Plan S and Open Access Predatory Journals - three topics that concern us as researchers (Sonne et al., 2020).

Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences.

Here we present our view on the current Open Access debate, predatory journals and the on-going publication and promotion strategy of some countries and research institutions. We urge the world's researchers, journals and grant holders in collaboration to carefully consider how best to ensure continuous high-quality scientific publications in the future in a way so that limited funding results in important data and information being unpublished.

Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives.

Open access (OA) publishing is a recent phenomenon in scientific publishing, enabling free access to knowledge worldwide. In the Indian context, OA to science has been facilitated by government-funded repositories of student and doctoral theses, and many Indian society journals are published with platinum OA. The proportion of OA publications from India is significant in a global context, and Indian journals are increasingly available on OA repositories such as Pubmed Central, and Directory of Open Access Journals. However, OA in India faces numerous challenges, including low-quality or predatory OA journals, and the paucity of funds to afford gold OA publication charges. There is a need to increase awareness amongst Indian academics regarding publication practices, including OA, and its potential benefits, and utilize this modality of publication whenever feasible, as in publicly-funded research, or when platinum OA is available, while avoiding falling prey to poor quality OA journals.

Happy 70, Archives! - our mission and vision for the years to come.

This year we turn 70! Lucky for journals, they don't get old with volumes. In our case, quite the opposite. The idea of this editorial, however, is not to look so far back but to share with you - our readers and authors - where we see Archives in the years to come.

Facts on psychotraumatology.

Daily news is dominated by reports of traumatic events across the world. Is trauma indeed rather the norm than the exception? What are the facts? How can we better understand, prevent and treat the consequences of trauma? This past year the European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) has again tried to address these questions. With the gold Open Access model articles in the journal are being made immediately available without any barriers to access. In Europe, promising developments with regard to Open Science emerged in 2018, for instance, cOAlition S with their ambitious Plan S boosting the transition to full Open Access. In this editorial these and other developments in the journal, such as Registered Reports as a way to reduce Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), journal metrics, and the ESTSS EJPT award finalists for best paper of 2018 are being presented.

Las noticias del día a día están dominadas por reportajes de eventos traumáticos al rededor del mundo. ¿Es en realidad el trauma la norma  en vez de la excepción? ¿Cuáles son los datos? ¿Cómo podemos entender mejor, prevenir y tratar las consecuencias del trauma? Este último año la Revista Europea de Psicotraumatología ha intentado de nuevo abordar estas preguntas. Con el modelo gold Open Access, los artículos en la revista se ponen a disposición inmediatamente sin ningún tipo de barreras de acceso. En Europa, en el 2018 surgieron avances prometedores con respecto a las Ciencias Abiertas (Open Science), como por ejemplo, cOAlition S con su ambicioso Plan S, alentando la transición a Acceso Abierto total. En esta editorial, se presentan estos y otros desarrollos en la revista, como Informes Registrados como una forma de reducir las Prácticas de investigación cuestionable, mediciones de la revista, y los finalistas del premio ESTSS EJPT  al mejor artículo del año 2018.

Patient distribution in a mass casualty event of an airplane crash.

INTRODUCTION: Difficulties have been reported in the patient distribution during Mass Casualty Incidents. In this study we analysed the regional patient distribution protocol (PDP) and the actual patient distribution after the 2009 Turkish Airlines crash near Amsterdam. METHODS: Analysis of the patient distribution of 126 surviving casualties of the crash by collecting data on medical treatment capacity, number of patients received per hospital, triage classification, Injury Severity Score (ISS), secondary transfers, distance from the crash site, and the critical mortality rate. RESULTS: The PDP holds ambiguous definitions of medical treatment capacity and was not followed. There were 14 receiving hospitals (distance from crash: 5.8-53.5 km); four hospitals received 133-213% of their treatment capacity, and 5 hospitals received 1 patient. Three hospitals within 20 km of the crash did not receive any casualties. Level I trauma centres received 89% of the 'critical' casualties and 92% of the casualties with ISS ≥ 16. Only 3 casualties were secondarily transferred, and no casualties died in, or on the way to hospital (critical mortality rate=0%). CONCLUSION: Patient distribution worked out well after the crash as secondary transfers were low and critical mortality rate was zero. However, the regional PDP was not followed in this MCI and casualties were unevenly distributed among hospitals. The PDP is indistinctive, and should be updated in cooperation between Emergency Services, surrounding hospitals, and Schiphol International Airport as a high risk area.