Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars

Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals

Importance

Publishing in health professions education (HPE) journals is an integral component of academic discourse and career progression. Research in this field is shifting to an open access (OA) publishing model.

Objective

To identify the characteristics and publishing models of HPE journals and explore potential associations between publication costs and journal metrics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted between September 20, 2023, and February 14, 2024, using the World Bank purchasing power parity (PPP) index to analyze relative costs of article processing charges (APCs). Data on journal characteristics, impact metrics, APCs, and waiver or discount were extracted from the National Library of Medicine, Scimago, Scopus, journal websites, and email correspondence with editorial staff of journals. All HPE journals indexed in PubMed, written in or translated into English, and with HPE as a core component of their mission were included in the analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Two-year impact factor, H-index, cite score, Scientific Journal Ranking, and APC.

Results

Among the 51 journals included, 27 (53%) adopted OA-only and 24 (47%) adopted hybrid publishing models. The median (IQR) APC for all journals was $2820.00 ($928.00-$3300.00). Associations were observed between impact factor and APC (β coefficient, $386.84; 95% CI, $226.84-$546.84; P < .001) and between cite score and APC (β coefficient, $282.40; 95% CI, $148.12-$416.61; P < .001). Of 20 journal websites with information regarding fee waivers or discounts, 7 journals (35%) confirmed fee waiver or discount. The PPP index analysis of the top 39 countries publishing HPE research showed that the financial burden of meeting the median APC for publication was 1.94 to 10.26 times higher for authors from lower-income countries than for authors from the US.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adoption by HPE journals of an OA publishing model was high but access to APC waivers or discounts was limited. These factors create barriers to equitable OA practices, necessitating concerted efforts, such as increasing transparency of publishing costs, implementing economic impact analysis, expanding waivers to eligible authors, and applying holistic impact factor scoring.

Does neuroscience research change behaviour? A scoping review and case study in obesity neuroscience

The language employed by researchers to define and discuss diseases can itself be a determinant of health. Despite this, the framing of diseases in medical research literature is largely unexplored. This scoping review examines a prevalent medical issue with social determinants influenced by the framing of its pathogenesis: obesity. Specifically, we compare the currently dominant framing of obesity as an addiction to food with the emerging frame of obesity developing from neuroinflammation. We triangulate both corpus linguistic and bibliometric analysis of the top 200 most engaging neuroscience journal articles discussing obesity that were published open access in the past 10 years. The constructed Neurobesity Corpus is available for public use. The scoping review analysis confirmed that neuroinflammation is an emerging way for obesity to be framed in medical research. Importantly, the articles analysed that discussed neuroinflammation were less likely to use crisis terminology, such as referring to an obesity "epidemic". We highlight a potential relationship between the adoption of addiction frames and the use of stigmatising language in medical research.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity

Access to published research has always been difficult for researchers and clinicians in low- and middle-income countries, because of the cost of and lack of access to the relevant publications. The dramatic recent increase in electronic research publications has resulted in a marked improvement in reader access to these publications through their mainly Open Access policies, however the costs of processing of submissions and publication have now become the burden of the researchers wishing to publish, rather than the readers. For many researchers working in LMIC, the Article Processing Charges (APC) are prohibitive, hampering the publication of research being conducted in and relevant to these countries. A number of grant funding agencies and international not-for-profit organizations are trying to address these issues by including funding for article publications in their grants, or by supporting publishing entities by subsiding the cost of publication, but more needs to be done by major journal publishers through markedly reducing the APC being charged to researchers in LMIC for open access facilities.

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

Background

Optimizing access to high-quality scientific journals has become an important priority for academic departments, including the ability to read the scientific literature and the ability to afford to publish papers in those journals. In this contribution, we assess the question of whether institutional investment in scientific journals aligns with the journals where researchers send their papers for publication, and where they serve as unpaid reviewers and editors.

Methods

We assembled a unique suite of information about the publishing habits of our Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, including summaries of 3,540 journal publications by 35 faculty members. These data include economic costs of journals to institutions and to authors, benefits to authors in terms of journal prestige and citation rates, and considerations of ease of reading access for individuals both inside and outside the university. This dataset included data on institutional costs, including subscription pricing (rarely visible to scholars), and "investment" by scholars in supporting journals, such as time spent as editors and reviewers.

Results

Our results highlighted the complex set of relationships between these factors, and showed that institutional costs often do not match well with payoffs in terms of benefits to researchers (e.g., citation rate, prestige of journal, ease of access). Overall, we advocate for greater cost-benefit transparency to help compare different journals and different journal business models; such transparency would help both researchers and their institutions in investing wisely the limited resources available to academics.

A set of principles and practical suggestions for equitable fieldwork in biology

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as "fieldwork." Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.

The future of sub-Saharan Africa’s biodiversity in the face of climate and societal change

Many of the world’s most biodiverse regions are found in the poorest and second most populous continent of Africa; a continent facing exceptional challenges. Africa is projected to quadruple its population by 2100 and experience increasingly severe climate change and environmental conflict—all of which will ravage biodiversity. Here we assess conservation threats facing Africa and consider how these threats will be affected by human population growth, economic expansion, and climate change. We then evaluate the current capacity and infrastructure available to conserve the continent’s biodiversity. We consider four key questions essential for the future of African conservation: (1) how to build societal support for conservation efforts within Africa; (2) how to build Africa’s education, research, and management capacity; (3) how to finance conservation efforts; and (4) is conservation through development the appropriate approach for Africa? While the challenges are great, ways forward are clear, and we present ideas on how progress can be made. Given Africa’s current modest capacity to address its biodiversity crisis, additional international funding is required, but estimates of the cost of conserving Africa’s biodiversity are within reach. The will to act must build on the sympathy for conservation that is evident in Africa, but this will require building the education capacity within the continent. Considering Africa’s rapidly growing population and the associated huge economic needs, options other than conservation through development need to be more effectively explored. Despite the gravity of the situation, we believe that concerted effort in the coming decades can successfully curb the loss of biodiversity in Africa.