Learned Publishing最新文献

Editorials have earned a special place among many practices, tools, and policies available to editors for journal advancement. Despite the vital and diverse roles of editorials in academic journals, they have rarely been systematically analysed for common characteristics or patterns. In this study, I approached editorials as a leadership practice of journal editors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand how editors use editorials to lead their journals. To render a manageable set of editorials and, at the same time, to capture the latest trends, I focused on editorials published in 2022 in top journals in the field of organizational behaviour/human resource management indexed by Scopus. The sample consisted of 120 editorials found in 103 journals managed by 21 publishers. I analysed the editorials using qualitative content analysis that was guided by two research questions: (1) How commonly do editors use editorials? (2) What objectives do editors pursue in their editorials? The analyses showed that editorials appear to be neither a regular nor a common practice. An overwhelming majority of editorials were written to validate existing knowledge. The findings raise several important issues, including an unclear contribution of editorials, perceived or factual, to academic journals and the editor's role in the journal development process. Journal editors, editorial board members, publishers, universities, and organizations associated with journals should consider revisiting their policies and practices to ensure a purposeful, meaningful, and systematic use of editorials.

Funders, publishers, scholarly societies, universities, and other stakeholders need to be able to track the impact of programs and policies designed to advance data sharing and reuse. With the launch of the NIH data management and sharing policy in 2023, establishing a pre-policy baseline of sharing and reuse activity is critical for the biological and biomedical community. Toward this goal, we tested the utility of mentions of research resources, databases, and repositories (RDRs) as a proxy measurement of data sharing and reuse. We captured and processed text from Methods sections of open access biological and biomedical research articles published in 2020 and 2021 and made available in PubMed Central. We used natural language processing to identify text strings to measure RDR mentions. In this article, we demonstrate our methodology, provide normalized baseline data sharing and reuse activity in this community, and highlight actions authors and publishers can take to encourage data sharing and reuse practices.

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.