Peer Review in Law Journals.

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer's competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as "Peer review ethics", "Reviewer", "Transparency of identities", "Publication type", and "Research misconduct". Spanish journals favor reviewers' "Independence" and "Competence" and "Anonymized" peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists.

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists' engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists' attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists' attitudes and their open science practices.

Corrigendum to: Does small equal predatory? Analysis of publication charges and transparency of editorial policies in Croatian open access journals.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.032.].

Does small equal predatory? Analysis of publication charges and transparency of editorial policies in Croatian open access journals.

INTRODUCTION: We approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrcak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies. RESULTS: The majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from "predatory" journals. Almost all Hrcak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrcak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal's origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards. CONCLUSION: In order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies.

Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which Instructions to authors of the Croatian open access (OA) journals are addressing ethical issues. Do biomedical journals differ from the journals from other disciplines in that respect? Our hypothesis was that biomedical journals maintain much higher publication ethics standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study looked at 197 Croatian OA journals Instructions to authors to address the following groups of ethical issues: general terms; guidelines and recommendations; research approval and registration; funding and conflict of interest; peer review; redundant publications, misconduct and retraction; copyright; timeliness; authorship; and data accessibility. We further compared a subset of 159 non-biomedical journals with a subset of 38 biomedical journals. Content analysis was used to discern the ethical issues representation in the instructions to authors. RESULTS: The groups of biomedical and non-biomedical journals were similar in terms of originality (χ2=2.183, P=0.140), peer review process (χ2=0.296, P=0.586), patent/grant statement (χ2=2.184, P=0.141), and timeliness of publication (χ2=0.369, P=0.544). We identified significant differences among categories including ethical issues typical for the field of biomedicine, like patients (χ2=47.111, P<0.001), and use of experimental animals (χ2=42.543, P<0.001). Biomedical journals also rely on international editorial guidelines formulated by relevant professional organizations heavily, compared with non-biomedical journals (χ2=42.666, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Low representation or absence of some key ethical issues in author guidelines calls for more attention to the structure and the content of Instructions to authors in Croatian OA journals.