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.

Estimating the productivity cost of administrative duties and work-related engagements from submission trends during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

During the initial months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mBio experienced a large increase in the number of submissions, a phenomenon that was also observed for journals of different fields. Since most research laboratories were closed, this increase cannot reflect increased research activity. In this editorial, we propose that the increase in submissions reflected the release of a backlog of unpublished work following a reduction in work-related engagements including scientific travel, which in turn provides an estimate of the productivity costs of such activities on research output.

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Major Neurosurgery Journals Between 2017 and 2022.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Financial conflicts of interest between editorial board members and industry could lead to biases and impartial editorial decisions. We aimed to evaluate the frequency, amount, and characteristics of payments to editorial board members of neurosurgery journals over a 6-year period. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, editorial board members were derived from the top 10 neurosurgery journals based on Google Scholar metrics. The Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was accessed to evaluate industry payments to editorial board members from 2017to 2022. Descriptive analyses were performed on payment data, adjusted for inflation using the consumer price indices. RESULTS: We included 805 editorial board members. After excluding duplicate names, 342 (53.9%) of 634 had received payments between 2017 and 2022. Eight of 10 journals had more than 50% of editorial board members listed in the Open Payments database. Between 2017 and 2022, the total number of payments to editorial board members was $143 732 057, encompassing $1 323 936 in research payments, $69 122 067 in associated research funding, $5 380 926 in ownership and investment interests, and $67 905 128 in general payments. General payments decreased from $13 676 382 in 2017 to $8 528 003 in 2022. Royalties ($43 393 697) and consulting ($13 157 934) contributed the most to general payments between 2017 and 2022. Four journals had a percentage increase in total payments, whereas general payments decreased for 6 journals. CONCLUSION: Around 54% of editorial board members of neurosurgical journals received industry payments between 2017 and 2022. We identified journal-specific trends in industry payments and highlighted the importance of transparency and disclosure of financial conflicts of interests for neurosurgery journals.

Assessment of self-reported financial conflicts of interest in vascular surgery studies.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COIs). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals. METHODS: A literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 through December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior. RESULTS: A total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared with authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [interquartile range, $2441-$100,551] vs $2361 [interquartile range, $525-$9,699]; P < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6 and odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared with payments received in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies.

Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library.

BACKGROUND: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study's inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library's collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library. CASE PRESENTATION: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library's copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests. CONCLUSION: Based on the sample data set, the library's copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.