Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of 'publish or perish'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing.

Those who participate in and contribute to academic publishing are affected by its evolution. Funding bodies, academic institutions, researchers and peer-reviewers, junior scholars, freelance language editors, language-editing services, and journal editors are to enforce and uphold the ethical norms on which academic publishing is founded. Deviating from such norms will challenge and threaten the scholarly reputation, academic careers, and institutional standing; reduce the publishers' true impacts; squander public funding; and erode the public trust to the academic enterprise. Rigorous review is paramount because peer-review norms guarantee that scientific findings are scrutinized before being publicized. Volunteer peer-reviewers and guest journal editors devote an immense amount of unremunerated time to reviewing papers, voluntarily serving the scientific community, and benefiting the publishers. Some mega-journals are motivated to mass-produce publications and attract the funded projects instead of maintaining the scientific rigor. The rapid development of mega-journals may diminish some traditional journals by outcompeting their impacts. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools/algorithms such as ChatGPT may be misused to contribute to the mass-production of publications which may have not been rigorously revised or peer-reviewed. Maintaining norms that guarantee scientific rigor and academic integrity enable the academic community to overcome the new challenges such as mega-journals and AI tools.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct.

BACKGROUND: As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles. METHODS: We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch). RESULTS: A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months. DISCUSSION: The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%). CONCLUSION: These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.

Article retraction rates in selected MeSH term categories in PubMed published between 2010 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Academic article retractions occur across all disciplines, though few studies have examined the association between research topics and retraction rates. OBJECTIVES: We assessed and compared the rate of retraction across several important clinical research topics. METHODS: Information about the number of publications, the number of retractions, the retraction rate, and the time to retraction was collected for articles identified by 15 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. These articles were published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The searches took place between 18 September 2021 and 24 October 2021. The MeSH terms were selected based on our clinical experience with the expectation that there will be multiple publications during the timeframe to use for the searches. Additional topics were selected based on the frequency of controversy in the public media and were identified by the Altmetric Top 100 report. RESULTS: The mean number of publications for all categories was 181,975 ± 332,245; the median number of publications was 67,991 [Q1, Q3; 31951.5, 138,981.5]. The mean number of retractions was 100.3 ± 251.3, and the median number of retractions was 22 [Q1, Q3; 6.5, 53]. The mean time to retraction ranged from 114 days to 1,409.5 days; the median was 857.3 days [Q1, Q3; 684.7, 1098.6], depending on the topic. The various MeSH term categories used in this study had significant differences in retraction rate and time to retraction. The "Neoplasms" category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications). DISCUSSION: All PubMed categories analyzed in this study had retracted articles. The median time to retraction was 857 days. The long delays in some categories could contribute to potentially misleading information which might have adverse effects on clinical decisions in patient care and on research design. CONCLUSION: Rate of retraction varies across research topics and further studies are needed to explore this relationship.

• Article retractions occurred in all subsets of articles classified by the 15 PubMed MeSH terms used in this study.• The time to retraction and the rate of retraction differed significantly across research topics classified by these MeSH terms. This suggests that research content and visibility affect retraction rates.• As an example, the "Neoplasms" category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications).• Readers, editors, and authors need to understand that retractions do occur following publication in the medical literature. These retractions potentially have important consequences and require attention from all individuals involved in the multiple steps needed to create high-quality medical and scientific information.

Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers.

AIMS: We explored the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards predatory publishing. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post quasi experimental design was implemented on HCWs within King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Following a 60-min educational lecture, a self-administered questionnaire was completed by participants. Pre- and post-intervention scores for familiarity, knowledge, practices, and attitudes were compared using the paired sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify predictors of mean differences (MD) of knowledge scores. RESULTS: A total of 121 respondents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants demonstrated underwhelming awareness of predatory publishing and average levels of knowledge of their characteristics. Furthermore, respondents did not take the necessary precautions to avoid predatory publishers. The intervention (i.e. the educational lecture) improved familiarity (MD: 13.4; 95%CI: 12.4 - 14.4; p-value < .001), knowledge of predatory journal's characteristics (MD: 12.9; 95%CI: 11.1 - 14.8; p-value < .001), awareness and perceived compliance to preventive measures (MD: 7.7; 95%CI: 6.7 - 8.6; p-value < .001), and positively influenced attitudes towards open access and safe publishing (MD: 0.8; 95%CI: 0.2 - 1.5; p-value = 0.012). Females had significantly lower familiarity scores (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, those who had published in open access journals, received at least one predatory e-mail, or had more than 5 published original articles had significantly higher familiarity and knowledge scores (all p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An educational lecture proved effective in improving awareness of KHCC's HCW's to predatory publishers. Nonetheless, the mediocrity of pre-intervention scores raises concerns on effectiveness of the predatory covert practices.

The promotion of critical reading through the digital environment: A study on the virtual epitexts used to promote children's picturebooks.

The most recent research studies in the field of reading describe a new cultural ecosystem in which analog and digital reading coexist and contribute to transform what is read, either through the way reading is performed or by promoting reading. In this context, the training of critical readers is particularly important, an aspect emphasized by UNESCO and the curriculum frameworks based on its premises. In order to provide data for reflection on this question, this paper presents an essentially qualitative and interpretive documentary study of a sample of 836 virtual epitexts that promote children's picturebooks. The selected documents consist of the postings by 45 publishing houses between 2020 and 2022 on their YouTube and Vimeo channels. The results of the content analysis present the current tendencies in digital promotion of children's books and the strategies most likely to encourage critical reading. The insistence on the author's presence, the emphasis on the materiality of the book as an object, the strengthening of artistic discourse and the hybridization of reality and fiction, among other aspects, all propose a type of reading that favors the development of critical thinking. The results are complemented by a selection of virtual epitexts suggested to mediators and readers as resources of interest in promoting critical reading in socio-educational contexts.

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.

Preparedness for managing pandemic using distributed mobile brokers - Using COVID 19 use case.

The human community has experienced the worst disaster during this pandemic spread of COVID-19. Getting essential services viz., medical, food, water, and oxygen support have been challenging during the pandemic. People suffer inadequate essential services during these lockdowns and quarantines. This paper proposes a distributed mobile broker service using the MQTT protocol for managing and accessing essential services during a pandemic. The proposed method splits the city into areas. The essential service providers register their services with the publishers and the essential service seekers seek their services from the publishers using mobile brokers. The mobile broker is also equipped with data aware trajectory planning technique that considers collecting data from available nodes with less delay. The proposed technique has been tested under two scenarios viz., mobile brokers, fixed subscribers, and mobile brokers, mobile subscribers. The performance analysis has been carried out in terms of delay and packet delivery ratio with fixed broker conditions.

The visual abstract: A social media fad or the future of dissemination.

This editorial discusses the emergence of visual abstracts within journals to disseminate findings. Published alongside Aggarwal's retrospective study reporting that visual abstracts do not increase impact scores more than conventional abstracts of clinical research, it is suggested that visual abstracts may have a greater impact for smaller, specialty journals.

A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review.

BACKGROUND: The amount and value of researchers' peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered. METHODS: Using publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers' time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system. RESULTS: We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD. CONCLUSIONS: By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers.

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as "predatory". Simply referring to them as "potentially predatory" or "borderline predatory" also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Visual abstracts do not increase some impact scores more than conventional abstracts of clinical research: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the use of visual abstracts on social media platforms can improve comprehensive social media and conventional metrics such as total altmetric attention score, full text page views and citation counts (study outcomes) through retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We included all original research articles (Total 307 articles: N = 69 in visual abstract group and N = 238 in control group) published between July 2018 and January 2019 in the JAMA, BMJ and the NEJM and used negative binomial regression to adjust for article characteristics. RESULTS: Adjusted analysis showed no significant differences between articles with and without visual abstracts in the altmetric attention score (p = 0.37) and in number of page views (p = 0.44). Citations in the Web of Science core collection were found to be statistically significant favouring control group (p = 0.028). We also found no significant differences in altmetric attention score and page views after stratification for article type [randomised controlled trial (RCT) vs. non-RCT]. Citations counts were found to be borderline significant for RCT (p = 0.04) and non-significant for non-RCT. CONCLUSION: Visual abstracts might not be effective in disseminating scientific research. We should look at other innovative ways to improve the visibility of the research.

Business and publication models of radiology journals.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional and open-access publication models have been increasingly scrutinized, particularly in light of the recent impasse regarding cost and access between Elsevier and the University of California. Peer-reviewed publications are the main source through which science is disseminated, yet the industry remains an enigma to most. Our aim was to determine radiology publisher market-share, access type, geographic distribution and relative research impact in order to better understand the traditionally opaque realm of academic publishing. METHODS: During April 2020, Scopus was queried to extract all entries in the "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" subcategory of "Medicine." Journal name, publisher, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) score, country and publication model were cataloged. Publishers were grouped by their ownership type and journals were grouped by their publication model. Overall trends were assessed across publisher type, publication model, and geographic location. RESULTS: Commercial publishers are used by 82% (239 of 293) of radiology journals. Elsevier and Springer Nature together published 40% (118/293) of journal titles within the category. Approximately one fourth (77/293) of radiology journals were open-access. On average, SJRs were highest for journals published commercially. Mean SJR across the top 10 publishers and publication model were similar (p = 0.06 and p = 0.48, respectively). DISCUSSION: Radiology journal publication is heavily consolidated amongst a few global commercial organizations. Most radiology journals were subscription-based, but their impact did not differ significantly from open-access counterparts. Further disputes between universities and publishers could influence future manuscript submission, review, and citation, which has the potential to destabilize traditional publication models.

Assessing Suicide Reporting in Top Newspaper Social Media Accounts in China: Content Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that suicide reporting in mainstream media has a significant impact on suicidal behaviors (eg, irresponsible suicide reporting can trigger imitative suicide). Traditional mainstream media are increasingly using social media platforms to disseminate information on public-related topics, including health. However, there is little empirical research on how mainstream media portrays suicide on social media platforms and the quality of their coverage. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the characteristics and quality of suicide reporting by mainstream publishers via social media in China. METHODS: Via the application programming interface of the social media accounts of the top 10 Chinese mainstream publishers (eg, People's Daily and Beijing News), we obtained 2366 social media posts reporting suicide. This study conducted content analysis to demonstrate the characteristics and quality of the suicide reporting. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, we assessed the quality of suicide reporting by indicators of harmful information and helpful information. RESULTS: Chinese mainstream publishers most frequently reported on suicides stated to be associated with conflict on their social media (eg, 24.47% [446/1823] of family conflicts and 16.18% [295/1823] of emotional frustration). Compared with the suicides of youth (730/1446, 50.48%) and urban populations (1454/1588, 91.56%), social media underreported suicides in older adults (118/1446, 8.16%) and rural residents (134/1588, 8.44%). Harmful reporting practices were common (eg, 54.61% [1292/2366] of the reports contained suicide-related words in the headline and 49.54% [1172/2366] disclosed images of people who died by suicide). Helpful reporting practices were very limited (eg, 0.08% [2/2366] of reports provided direct information about support programs). CONCLUSIONS: The suicide reporting of mainstream publishers on social media in China broadly had low adherence to the WHO guidelines. Considering the tremendous information dissemination power of social media platforms, we suggest developing national suicide reporting guidelines that apply to social media. By effectively playing their separate roles, we believe that social media practitioners, health institutions, social organizations, and the general public can endeavor to promote responsible suicide reporting in the Chinese social media environment.

The Uptake and Impact of a Label for Peer-Reviewed Books.

This article presents an analysis of the uptake of the GPRC label (Guaranteed Peer Reviewed Content label) since its introduction in 2010 until 2019. GPRC is a label for books that have been peer reviewed introduced by the Flemish publishers association. The GPRC label allows locally published scholarly books to be included in the regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities which is used in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Ten years after the start of the GPRC label, this is the first systematic analysis of the uptake of the label. We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. Our two main data sources are the Flemish regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities, which currently includes 2,580 GPRC-labeled publications, and three interviews with experts on the GPRC label. Firstly, we study the importance of the label in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Secondly, we analyse the label in terms of its possible effect on multilingualism and the local or international orientation of publications. Thirdly, we analyse to what extent the label has been used by the different disciplines. Lastly, we discuss the potential implications of the label for the peer review process among book publishers. We find that the GPRC label is of limited importance to the Flemish performance-based research funding system. However, we also conclude that the label has a specific use for locally oriented book publications and in particular for the discipline Law. Furthermore, by requiring publishers to adhere to a formalized peer review procedure, the label affects the peer review practices of local publishers because not all book publishers were using a formal system of peer review before the introduction of the label and even at those publishers who already practiced peer review, the label may have required the publishers to make these procedures more uniform.

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.

'A journal with ambitions': Health Libraries Review and Shane Godbolt.

In 1978, the UK Library Association's newly formed Medical, Health and Welfare Libraries Group decided to establish a newsletter for its members. This paper sets out to describe how that newsletter evolved into Health Libraries Review (subsequently Health Information and Libraries Journal) and became the premier European journal for health-care information professionals. Drawing on both published accounts and personal reminiscences, it focuses on the role played by Shane Godbolt as the Review's founding editor. It analyses and discusses the factors that influenced her work, and concludes by summarising the lasting importance of her achievements as editor.

Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.

BACKGROUND: Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers' editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations. METHODS: We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software. RESULTS: At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder's wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers' choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.