Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

An Evidence-Based Framework for Medical Student Research Training

Background

As research becomes an increasingly important component of medical education, there is greater emphasis on incorporating programmatic enhancements to the research experience. This study builds a logic model to summarize research program inputs, outputs, and outcomes from research-oriented medical schools across the country, providing a framework that institutions can use to design and improve their medical student research training programs.

Methods

Between November 2021 and February 2022, we administered a survey assessing institutional characteristics, research offerings, curriculum, funding, and student scholarly products to the medical schools ranked 1-50 in research in 2021 by US News and World Report. Results were compiled in the form of a logic model.

Results

Thirty-seven institutions (72.5%) responded. Common program inputs included personnel such as at least one funded program director (97.3%), while funding for medical student research activities was highly variable (8-72%). There was much less funding for faculty research mentors (2.7%), advisors (18.9%), and teaching faculty (29.7%). Common outputs included a medical student research office or program (97.3%), formal research curricula (83.8%), and services and programs such as research day (91.9%). The most common outcomes tracked were publications (48.6%), presentations/posters (43.2%), student participation (29.7%), and completion of a research requirement (29.7%).

Conclusions

Common themes in medical student research training programs may be conceptualized with a logic model that schools can use to develop, evaluate, and iteratively improve their programs. Institutions should consider their desired program outcomes prior to designing inputs (e.g., funding, personnel) and outputs (e.g., curriculum, training).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3.

Access to evidence-based care: a systematic review of trauma and surgical literature costs across resource settings

Background

Evidence-based medicine has become the foundation for surgeons around the world to provide the most effective surgical care. However, the article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees for surgical journals may be a barrier, particularly for those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature, inclusive of trauma, across resource settings.

Data sources

The Web of Science Core Collection database.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

A complete list of journals publishing surgical content between 2019 and 2020 was compiled. The most frequently indexed journals were reviewed using the individual journal websites to extract the type of access (ie, open, closed, hybrid), impact factors, publication languages, APCs, subscription pricing, and any discounts listed.

Results

The literature search revealed 4759 unique journals. The 500 most frequently indexed were reviewed. The mean APC for a fully open access surgical journal was US$1574 and for a hybrid surgical journal was US$3338. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal were US$434 and US$1878 for an individual and institution, respectively. When considering purchasing power parity, APCs and subscription costs ranged from 2 to 15 times more expensive in LMICs when compared with those in the USA.

Limitations

Primary search term was in English only, and only peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed.

Conclusions or implications of key findings

Although initiatives exist to support peer-reviewed journals in LMICs, there is an exorbitant cost for authors in these countries, as well as those in high-income countries that are not affiliated with a large institution, to either publish in, or access, a majority of surgical journals. Efforts to lower the overall cost of publishing must be made to provide greater access to medical literature.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202140227.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

The Changing Medical Publishing Industry: Economics, Expansion, and Equity

Medical journal publishing has changed dramatically over the past decade. The shift from print to electronic distribution altered the industry's economic model. This was followed by open access mandates from funding organizations and the subsequent imposition of article processing charges on authors. The medical publishing industry is large and while there is variation across journals, it is overall highly profitable. As journals have moved to digital dissemination, advertising revenues decreased and publishers shifted some of the losses onto authors by way of article processing charges. The number of open access journals has increased substantially in recent years. The open access model presents an equity paradox; while it liberates scientific knowledge for the consumer, it presents barriers to those who produce research. This emerging "pay-to-publish" system offers advantages to authors who work in countries and at institutes with more resources. Finally, the medical publishing industry represents an unusual business model; the people who provide both the content and the external peer review receive no payment from the publisher, who generates revenue from the content. The very unusual economic model of this industry makes it vulnerable to disruptive change. The economic model of medical publishing is rapidly evolving and this will lead to disruption of the industry. These changes will accelerate dissemination of science and may lead to a shift away from lower-impact journals towards pre-print servers.

Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980-2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.

RESULTS

Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018-2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%-41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5-5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6-2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC - r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology - r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).

CONCLUSION

OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.

Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

Biomedical fields have seen a remarkable increase in hybrid Gold open access articles. However, it is uncertain whether the hybrid Gold open access option contributes to a citation advantage, an increase in the citations of articles made immediately available as open access regardless of the article’s quality or whether it involves a trending topic of discussion. This study aimed to compare the citation counts of hybrid Gold open access articles to subscription articles published in hybrid journals. The study aimed to ascertain if hybrid Gold open access publications yield an advantage in terms of citations. This cross-sectional study included the list of hybrid journals under 59 categories in the ‘Clinical Medicine’ group from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 2018–2021. The number of citable items with ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Subscription and Free to Read’ in each journal, as well as the number of citations of those citable items, were extracted from JCR. A hybrid Gold open access citation advantage was computed by dividing the number of citations per citable item with hybrid Gold open access by the number of citations per citable item with a subscription. A total of 498, 636, 1009, and 1328 hybrid journals in the 2018 JCR, 2019 JCR, 2020 JCR, and 2021 JCR, respectively, were included in this study. The citation advantage of hybrid Gold open access articles over subscription articles in 2018 was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.65); in 2019, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.41); in 2020, it was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20–1.39); and in 2021, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.42). In the ‘Clinical Medicine’ discipline, the articles published in the hybrid journal as hybrid Gold open access had a greater number of citations when compared to those published as a subscription, self-archived, or otherwise openly accessible option.

Peer reviewers from Low- and Middle-Income Countries(LMIC) for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials

Open access journals (OAJ) in biomedicine are promoted to improve the reach and distribution of global health research (GHR).However, in the last 20 years, article publishing charge (APC) is attracting and publishing the vast majority of papers from high-income countries (HIC) in 'oncology' journals under OAJ. This paper outlines the impediments for cancer research and publication from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC): (a) existing disparities in cancer care facilities and survival outcomes between HIC and LMIC, (b) more than 70% of OAJ in 'oncology' subject levy APC, becoming unaffordable for scientists and clinicians from LMIC, (c) impactful OAJ in oncology engage less than 10% of members from LMIC in editorial board or as peer reviewer, whereas two-third of cancer diagnosis and management occur in these countries. Peer review serves the editors by recommending the relevant papers. Thus, peer reviewers from developing countries working for the OAJs in 'oncology' can increase the diversity in publication, improving the GHR in cancer management. The cancer research and clinical trials which can bring to notice the challenges and hurdles faced by researchers, clinicians and cancer patients in LMIC will be served to some measure by engaging peer reviewers from those countries who understand the ecosystem.

Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research

Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00), where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost.

Profiling African Health Journals: A Bibliometric Study

Objectives: This study aimed to map out African health journals using publicly-available information on major databases.

Methods: The authors searched the African Journals Online Library (AJOL) and Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) databases from their inception in 1998 and 1996 respectively to 17 October 2020, and identified African health journals. The authors extracted data on journal scope, PubMed indexation, open-access status, publishing fees, Journal Publishing Practices and Standards rating and bibliometrics. The data were compared with health journals from other regions using the Chi-square test and odds ratio.

Results: AJOL had 173 health journals registered on its database. One hundred (57.8%) journals were actively publishing. Fifty-seven (32.9%) had a 1-star Journal Publishing Practices and Standards rating and 4 (2.3%) had 2-star ratings. 112 (64.7%) had no star rating. The journal scope spanned all aspects of health. Few health journals were PubMed (n = 20) or SJR (n = 22) indexed. On average, African journals had lower total publications (median [IQR]: 52.0 [29.0–74.8] vs. 140.0 [75.8–272.5]), total references (55.0 [19.5–74.8] vs. 160.0 [42.0–519.8]), and H-index (12.2 [5.0–14.0] vs. 39.1 [10.0–53.0]) (P=0.01) compared to other regions.

Conclusion: African health journals face unique challenges that require targeted interventions.

Neurosurgical publication - Should we publish at any cost? An in-depth analysis of costs incurred in publication

OBJECTIVES

With the recent paradigm shift in neurosurgical publications, open access (OA) publishing is burgeoning along with traditional publishing methods. We aimed to explore costs of publication across 53 journals.

METHODS

We identified 53 journals publishing neurosurgical work. Journal type, submission and open access charges, colour print fees, impact indicators, publisher, and subscription prices were obtained from journal and publisher websites. Costs were unified in American Dollars. Mean prices per journal were used to equilibrate membership and subscription discounts. Correlations were performed using Spearman Rho (ρ), p<0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 53 journals, 12 are OA-only, 40 are hybrid, and 1 is traditional. 22 and 43 journals provide their submission costs by end of phase 1 and 2, respectively (prices always for phase 2; 26 free of charge, 4 under $500, and 1 under $1000). Median OA charge is $3286 (49 journals; range $0-$7827). 36 of the 53 journals did not list print fees for colour figures (29 in phase 2). Median fee estimate per figure is $422 (range $25-$1060). Median personal subscription for 1 year is $344 (range $60-$1158; 48 journals). Median institutional subscription for 1 year is $2082 (Range $38-$5510; 34 journals). There is mild positive correlation between journal impact factor and OA fees (ρ=0.287, p=0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of easily accessible information about Neurosurgical publications, such as submission costs, or OA charges create unnecessary hurdle and should be remedied. Publishing in Neurosurgery should be a pleasant learning experience for the cost anxiety should not be a limiting factor.

The impact of article processing charge waiver on conducting research in low-income countries

Health sciences research is a major tool in exchanging publications and knowledge between the various countries of the world. Researchers in developing countries barely have any financial funding from governmental or educational institutes to support their research. In low-income countries such as Syria, With less than 30$ per month and almost no financial support, Syrian residency doctors are fighting to push the scientific research reality of this ongoing crisis country forward and without a doubt, APC waiver plays a crucial role in this continuing mission.