Learned Publishing最新文献

There is some evidence that Altmetric scores correlate with citations in medical research, but this is not consistent across different specialties. No previous studies have examined the association between Altmetric score and citations amongst primary care research journals. The aim of this study was therefore to describe this association. We identified the ten most frequently cited articles published in the top 15 highest impact factor primary care research journals. Article and journal metrics were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. We used Spearman's correlation coefficient (r_s) and log–log linear regression modelling to examine the relationship between citations and Altmetric score. 150 articles were included with a median of 36.5 (IQR 20–59; range 5–811) citations. We found a positive association between citations and Altmetric score (r_s = 0.519; p < 0.001). A unit increase in log Altmetric score was associated with increased log citations [0.175 (95% CI 0.091–0.259, p < 0.001)] in an adjusted linear regression model. The regression findings indicate that increasing Altmetric score by 10% was associated with a 1.68% increase in citation rate. This has implications for how authors, academic institutions and primary care research journals approach dissemination of articles.

In this study, by using Beall's (Scholarly open-access, 2014; Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers, 2018) predatory journal lists as well as direct e-mail solicitations from journals, we intentionally submitted a poorly written manuscript to 58 open-access journals using counterfeit names and affiliations. Although there have been several studies examining the practices of questionable journals, there is a lack of research investigating the interactive processes in detail. Our analysis, then, was to provide a more comprehensive view of the underlying reasoning for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Of the 31 journals acknowledging receipt of our manuscript, 21 accepted it either unexpurgated or asked only for cosmetic revisions. Regarding ‘positive responses’, we point to five common flaws associated with such journals, namely that (1) they lack any interest in the researchers who are submitting manuscripts; (2) they do not judge academic writing in accordance with expected conventions; (3) they appear to be indifferent to scholarship including research design, plagiarism issues, and citation quality; (4) their review process is opaque and overly hasty, and (5) the tone they use in correspondence e-mail messages is highly inappropriate. Based upon the investigation, it is clear that such journals' primary aim is in securing the article processing fee. Our findings paint a more comprehensive picture of questionable journal practices with the hope of disseminating such information to the broader scholarly community.

Academic publishers have quickly responded to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on authorship and academic integrity. However, there remains a lack of understanding about AI authorship policies and the attitude of academic journals towards these tools. This study aims to address this gap by examining the AI authorship policies of 300 top academic journals during the period of late-spring 2023. Over half of the journals examined have an AI authorship policy and guidelines for acknowledging AI usage in manuscript preparation. These acknowledgments are typically made in the methods or acknowledgement sections, although some journals have introduced a new, special section on AI usage. The study also found that AI authorship policies may differ depending on the publisher and discipline of the journal. Many publishers have adopted uniform AI authorship policies that are implemented across all journals that they publish. These results are useful for publishers, editors, and researchers who want to learn more about how academic journals are dealing with the emergence of large language models and other AI tools in scholarly communications.

This study explores how papers published in international journals in palliative and end-of-life care report ethical approval and informed consent. A literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted in PubMed, the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, the ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). A total of 169 empirical studies from 101 journals were deductively coded and analysed. The results showed that 5% of publications provided no information on ethical approval, 12% reported minimal information, 56% reported rudimentary information, and 27% reported comprehensive details. We also found that 13% did not report any information on informed consent, 17% reported minimal information, 50% reported rudimentary information, and 19% reported comprehensive details. The prevalence of missing and incomplete ethical statements and inadequate reporting of informed consent processes in recent publications raises concerns and highlights the need for improvement. We suggest that journals advocate high reporting standards and potentially reject papers that do not meet ethical requirements, as this is the quickest path to improvement.

This survey analyzes the quality of the portable document format (PDF) documents in online repositories in Switzerland, examining their accessibility for people with visual impairments. Two minimal accessibility features were analysed: the PDFs had to have tags and a hierarchical heading structure. The survey also includes interviews with the managers or heads of multiple Swiss universities' repositories to assess the general opinion and knowledge of PDF accessibility. An analysis of interviewee responses indicates an overall lack of awareness of PDF accessibility, and shows that online repositories currently have no concrete plans to address the issue. This paper concludes by presenting a set of recommendations for online repositories to improve the accessibility of their PDF documents.

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation-damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post-publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans-Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher-controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

Within the large body of literature on the peer review system for academic journals, there has been limited exploration of the latent functions of review feedback beyond its gatekeeping role. To address this gap, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 Chinese university academics specializing in educational studies. By applying the conceptual frameworks of organizational reputation and academic socialization, we investigated the multifaceted functions of review feedback. Our findings suggest that timely, specific, and constructive feedback are highly valued by Chinese university academics, and journals that provide such review feedback are perceived to possess a higher reputation and are more likely to attract high-quality submissions. Additionally, Chinese academics see the process of review and revision as a means of professional development since specific and constructive review feedback can lead them to deeper thinking and improve their knowledge of academic norms in their community. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of effective review feedback considering its function of fostering the socialization and professional development of academics while promoting the prosperity of the academic community as a whole.

This study was guided by previous research highlighting the significance of journal publishers' commercial or non-profit orientations in shaping academic editors' perspectives regarding the necessity of enhancing editorial and business practices. There is limited understanding of how the editor–publisher relationship varies based on publishers' commercial orientation. This study revealed five key factors influencing editors' attitudes towards how publishers strive to provide high-quality publications: (i) availability of high-quality publication services; (ii) sufficient technological support and access to visibility-related data; (iii) accessible marketing and indexing services; (iv) access to continuous education for the editorial team; and (v) a balance between editorial autonomy and publisher support in managing the journal. The study indicated that editors partnering with commercial publishers tended to receive more extensive and advanced services, better technological support, and more training opportunities, contributing to the production of superior end products. However, working with commercial publishers resulted in the trade-off of less editorial independence, which sometimes compromised editors' decision-making ability and made them feel uncertain about their further involvement. The study's findings highlighted the importance of publishers adopting a more strategic approach to support their editorial staff, while considering the unique needs of each journal.