ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing

Those who participate in and contribute to academic publishing are affected by its evolution. Funding bodies, academic institutions, researchers and peer-reviewers, junior scholars, freelance language editors, language-editing services, and journal editors are to enforce and uphold the ethical norms on which academic publishing is founded. Deviating from such norms will challenge and threaten the scholarly reputation, academic careers, and institutional standing; reduce the publishers' true impacts; squander public funding; and erode the public trust to the academic enterprise. Rigorous review is paramount because peer-review norms guarantee that scientific findings are scrutinized before being publicized. Volunteer peer-reviewers and guest journal editors devote an immense amount of unremunerated time to reviewing papers, voluntarily serving the scientific community, and benefiting the publishers. Some mega-journals are motivated to mass-produce publications and attract the funded projects instead of maintaining the scientific rigor. The rapid development of mega-journals may diminish some traditional journals by outcompeting their impacts. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools/algorithms such as ChatGPT may be misused to contribute to the mass-production of publications which may have not been rigorously revised or peer-reviewed. Maintaining norms that guarantee scientific rigor and academic integrity enable the academic community to overcome the new challenges such as mega-journals and AI tools.

Farewell Springer… Hello Wiley : The tale of an academic scientific periodical -"20 years later" the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling

Academic publishing is the support for dissemination of research findings that constitute the grounds upon which new orientations and improvements are based on sharing breaking ideas, critical analyses of data, and argumentations that sustain the development of collaborative research projects. The wide diffusion of new scientific findings is pivotal to the progress of medical sciences, a salient feature of human societal fullness and intellectual welfare. In a practical way, the value of academic publishing can be ascertained by its capacity to reach a wide number of readers from different fields that may provide the soil for interactive projects. The challenges are numerous (Zul in Challenges in Academic Publishing; Navigating the Obstacles, 2023). An examination of the means developed to survey the individual performances of scientists, based on their publications, has led me to comment in this editorial on pitfalls that muddle the way to upstanding evaluations mainly based on irrelevant metrics.

Why are peer reviewers thinning out, and are there ways to enrich the peer pool?

The editorial by Meyer et al. offers a realistic reflection of the challenging state of peer review participation in some journals that hold this task to highest standards. With an increasing publishing market that is still heavily quantitatively driven by publish or perish incentives, a limited or finite peer pool of experienced sports scientists, a peer rewards scheme (Publons) that was decommissioned in mid-2022, and the lack of appetite for open peer review, sports journals are faced with challenging times to try and attract peer reviewers, and keep them incentivized. Absent an equitable trade and career-boosting rewards, the crisis in peer review might not be easily resolved.

Drug delivery as a sustainable avenue to future therapies

Climate change and the need for sustainable, technological developments are the greatest challenges facing humanity in the coming decades. To address these issues, in 2015 the United Nations have established 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Anthropogenic climate change will not only affect everyone personally in the coming years, it will also reinforce the need to become more sustainable within drug delivery research. In 2021, I was appointed professor for pharmaceutical biology at the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg. Our research is at the interface between developing biogenic therapies and understanding of bacterial infections. In this contribution to the Orations - New Horizons of the Journal of Controlled Release, I would like to underline the need for future sustainable approaches in our research area, by highlighting selected examples from the fields of infection research, natural product characterisation and extracellular vesicles. My aim is to put into perspective current issues for these research topics, but also encourage our current student-training framework to contribute to education for sustainable development. This contribution is a personal statement to increase the overall awareness for sustainability challenges in drug delivery and beyond.

Notes on the history of SocialScienceResearch: In celebration of its 50th anniversary

This paper reports a first look at the founding of Social Science Research, providing a few key signposts but keenly aware that a full history must await recovery of many additional documentary materials. The journal was founded by James S. Coleman and Peter H. Rossi, who had trained at Columbia, taught at Chicago, and founded the interdisciplinary Department of Social Relations at Johns Hopkins. The Coleman-Rossi vision statement embeds three key ideas: (1) quantitative theoretical work and quantitative empirical work are close and constant partners; (2) quantitative theoretical work and quantitative empirical work each require special methods; and (3) crossing disciplinary lines spurs the growth of knowledge. The first issue of Social Science Research appeared in 1972. Then as now, SSR welcomed papers that may be too innovative or too technical (or too long or too short) for other journals, inclusive of papers that cross traditional disciplinary lines. Examination of the first four volumes (1972-1975) reveals a beautiful realization of the founders' vision - a collection of rigorous quantitative papers from across the social sciences, pushing frontiers in both theory and empirics and in both substance and methods. There is innovation and creativity - and a touch of the playfulness that accelerates the growth of knowledge.

Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews

One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents—research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications—for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken concurrently for a research protocol before running the study. After the protocol is approved in principle through these review processes, a funding review will take place, and the researchers will begin their research. Following the experiments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted on a completed version of the paper again, including the results and discussions (i.e., the full paper), and the full paper will be published once it has passed the second review. This paper provides the brief process of the trinity review system and discusses the need for and benefits of the proposed system. Although the trinity review system only applies to a few appropriate disciplines, it helps improve reproducibility and integrity.

Lived experiences of women academics during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan

This study explores the experiences of women academics while combining the challenging job of online teaching and familial responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. The aim is to outline the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on women academics. We employed a qualitative research design and collected data through in-depth qualitative telephonic interviews with thirteen women academics in four public sector universities in Pakistan. The findings show that women academics remained overwhelmed by the workload; lacked support; and endured a tiring struggle to manage their official duties and familial responsibilities. They were stressed and stuck in their children and family care and online teaching and had hardly any time for academic writing. The participants expressed being burned out, depressed, exhausted, angry, and in desperate need of personal time. Since women experienced the lockdown differently than men we suggest that they may be compensated at the time of tenure/promotions.

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as "predatory". Simply referring to them as "potentially predatory" or "borderline predatory" also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Gender equality in academic publishing: action from the BJPsych

Women in academic publishing and academic psychiatry face many challenges of gender inequality, including significant pay differentials, poor visibility in senior positions and a male-dominated hierarchical system. We discuss this problem and outline how the BJPsych plans to tackle these issues it in its own publishing.

Mentor and peer support for early career researchers sharing research with academia and beyond

There is a growing expectation that doctoral candidates and early career academics publish research outputs such as journal articles and conference papers, and that they share their findings with key stakeholders beyond academia. However, it is not known if these expectations are being coupled with support from mentors and peers within institutions. Through interviews with recent PhD graduates working as early career researchers in Australia and Japan, this paper investigates if mentor and peer support for producing both academic and translational outputs was forthcoming during their doctoral candidature and beyond. It also investigates kinds of supports provided in doctoral candidature and early career. Thirty early career researchers in Australia and Japan took part in this qualitative study involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of respondents. Researchers made translation support available for Japanese respondents so that those with limited English could take part. Findings suggest that mentor and peer support were not universal, and some respondents did not have a mentor or significant peer influence supporting their production of academic or translational research outputs. Support for sharing research with audiences beyond academia could be limited, with production of outputs for academic audiences consistently a greater focus of support. There were no mentoring supports for translational outputs that had salience across Australia and Japan within the sample. While limited attention has been given to the role that peer influence may play in supporting research output production of early career researchers the more even power relationship between peers as opposed to the peer-/mentor dyad can allow unique supports to flourish. Where institutions expect growing and diverse research output production by doctoral candidates and early career researchers, they should also ensure that support is provided through facilitating mentoring and peer relationships.

Predatory nursing journals: A case study of author prevalence and characteristics

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.

AIM

To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.

DESIGN

Quantitative descriptive case study.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.

DISCUSSION

Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.

CONCLUSION

While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Recent years have seen a spirited debate over whether there is linguistic injustice in academic publishing. One way that linguistic injustice might occur is if gatekeepers (e.g., peer reviewers and editors) judge the scholarly quality of academic writing more harshly if the writing does not meet expectations for international academic English, even if the content is good. We tested this with a randomized control study in which scholars judged the scientific quality of several scientific abstracts. Each abstract had two versions with identical scientific content, such that the language in one version conformed to standards for international academic English, and the language in the other version did not (but was still comprehensible). While the data are preliminary and the effects statistically inconclusive, both pre-registered and exploratory analyses of the data suggest that scholars may give abstracts lower ratings of scientific quality when the writing does not conform to standards of international academic English. These results suggest that linguistic bias may occur in academic peer reviewing and motivate further study to better understand and address this phenomenon.

Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers

Peer review is widely recognized as a mechanism for quality control of academic content. This research article aims at comparing the review reports and decisions of reviewers who are members of the editorial board of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ) with those reviewers suggested by the authors and who are not affiliated with the journal. 457 review reports on 378 papers submitted to the ESJ in the period of October-December 2017 were analysed. Statistical methods including OLS and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied based on the score approach toward the reviewers' assessments of the papers and their characteristics related to the country, gender, and time of revisions. Results show the difference between the decisions these two groups of reviewers made. Even though editor-suggested and author-suggested reviewers need equal time to review a paper, the former are less favourable towards the authors of the papers. It is also concluded that factors such as time and country of the reviewers influence their decisions. In this regard, the editors should avoid relying their decisions solely on review reports received from reviewers suggested by the authors. However, further research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Author gender differences in psychology citation impact 1996-2018

Academic psychology in the USA is a gender success story in terms of overturning its early male dominance but there are still relatively few senior female psychology researchers. To assess whether there are gender differences in citation impact that might help to explain either of these trends, this study investigates psychology articles since 1996. Seven out of eight Scopus psychology categories had a majority of female first-authored journal articles by 2018. From regression analyses of first and last author gender and team size, female first authors associate with a slightly higher average citation impact, but extra authors have a 10 times stronger association with higher average citation impact. Last author gender has little association with citation impact. Female first authors are more likely to be in larger teams and if team size is attributed to the first author's work, then their apparent influence of female first authors on citation impact doubles. While gender differences in average citation impact are too small to account for gender-related trends in academic psychology, they warn that male-dominated citation-based ranking lists of psychologists do not reflect the state of psychology research today.

"Reproducible" Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach

The nature of scientific research in mathematical and computational biology allows editors and reviewers to evaluate the findings of a scientific paper. Replication of a research study should be the minimum standard for judging its scientific claims and considering it for publication. This requires changes in the current peer review practice and a strict adoption of a replication policy similar to those adopted in experimental fields such as organic synthesis. In the future, the culture of replication can be easily adopted by publishing papers through dynamic computational notebooks combining formatted text, equations, computer algebra and computer code.

Home institution bias in the New England Journal of Medicine? A noninferiority study on citation rates

Recently, in the four top journals of humanities, an institutional bias towards publication of authors from Harvard and Yale was shown. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is today the highest ranked general medical journal. It is unknown if there exists institutional bias favoring publication of articles originating from Harvard University, since the NEJM is produced by the Massachusetts Medical Society with close connections to the Harvard University. We examined if studies originating from the Harvard University published in the NEJM were noninferior in terms of citation rates compared to articles with an origin outside Harvard University. We evaluated original research articles published in the NEJM in 2000 up until June 2001. A two-sample noninferiority test based on the primary endpoint of citations was performed. Twenty-two studies were affiliated to the Harvard University and 280 studies were not affiliated to the Harvard University. The mean number of citations for Harvard affiliated studies was 625 (95% CI 358–952, median 354) and for non–Harvard affiliated studies 493 (95% CI 421–569, median 303). The mean difference was not statistically different between affiliations, but fulfilled the requirements for noninferiority [132 (95% CI − 138–402, P = 0.343), Δ 200]. In summary, citation rates were comparable between studies origination from the Harvard University compared to non-Harvard Institutions. Based on these results there appears to be low risk of institutional bias in the publishing process of original studies in the NEJM.

Guideposts and Roadblocks to the Career-Long Scholarly Engagement of Physical Education Teacher Education Faculty

PURPOSE

Scholarship is essential for the growth and development of the physical education field. Over time, scholarship expectations have changed, forcing faculty members to alter time spent for research, teaching, and service. Social-cognitive career theory (SCCT) presents a model for understanding performance and persistence in an occupational environment. The interconnected aspects of SCCT have different emphasis related to self-efficacy, outcome expectations, or personal goals pursuit. This study explored physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty members' continuing engagement in scholarly activity through SCCT.

METHOD

Data collection included interviews with 9 senior PETE faculty members who met the criteria for "productive scholars over time." Curriculum vitae were collected to verify productivity.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed guidepost themes that included collaborating, finding balance, defining a research process, and maintaining a strong work ethic. Roadblocks encountered included other obligations and lack of support for research.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants demonstrated strong self-efficacy; held high, positive expectations for success; and set very specific, clear, and deliberate goals. Participant behavior was moderated by their personal attributes (capacity to build relationships, set goals, and maintain interest and passion) and was tempered by the environments in which they worked. Fostering similar behaviors has the potential to guide future and current PETE faculty members in creating supportive and encouraging atmospheres for sustained productivity. The lack of literature relating to this topic warrants the need for more research exploring the influential factors and benefits gained from sustained scholarly productivity over time for PETE faculty members.

Are Pseudonyms Ethical in (Science) Publishing? Neuroskeptic as a Case Study

The blogosphere is full of personalities with masks, or pseudonyms. Although not a desired state of public communication, one could excuse the use of pseudonyms in blogs and social media, which are generally unregulated or weakly regulated. However, in science publishing, there are increasingly strict rules regarding the use of false identities for authors, the lack of institutional or contact details, and the lack of conflicts of interest, and such instances are generally considered to be misconduct. This is because these violations of publishing protocol decrease trust and confidence in science and bring disrepute to those scientists who conform to the rules set out by journals and publishers and abide by them. Thus, when cases are encountered where trust and protocol in publishing are breached, these deserve to be highlighted. In this letter, I focus on Neuroskeptic, a highly prominent science critic, primarily on the blogosphere and in social media, highlighting the dangers associated with the use of pseudonyms in academic publishing.

Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics' OA practice

This paper presents the findings from a survey study of UK academics and their publishing behaviour. The aim of this study is to investigate academics' attitudes towards and practice of open access (OA) publishing. The results are based on a survey study of academics at 12 Russell Group universities, and reflect responses from over 1800 researchers. This study found that whilst most academics support the principle of making knowledge freely available to everyone, the use of OA publishing among UK academics was still limited despite relevant established OA policies. The results suggest that there were differences in the extent of OA practice between different universities, academic disciplines, age and seniorities. Academics' use in OA publishing was also related to their awareness of OA policy and OA repositories, their attitudes towards the importance of OA publishing and their belief in OA citation advantage. The implications of these findings are relevant to the development of strategies for the implementation of OA policies.

Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy

The high cost of journal articles has driven many researchers to turn to a new way of getting access: "pirate" article sites. Sci-Hub, the largest and best known of these sites, currently offers instant access to more than 58 million journal articles. Users attracted by the ease of use and breadth of the collection may not realize that these articles are often obtained using stolen credentials and downloading them may be illegal. This article will briefly describe Sci-Hub and how it works, the legal and ethical issues it raises, and the problems it may cause for librarians. Librarians should be aware of Sci-Hub and the ways it may change their patrons' expectations. They should also understand the risks Sci-Hub can pose to their patrons and their institutions.

Fairness in scientific publishing

Major changes are afoot in the world of academic publishing, exemplified by innovations in publishing platforms, new approaches to metrics, improvements in our approach to peer review, and a focus on developing and encouraging open access to scientific literature and data. The FAIR acronym recommends that authors and publishers should aim to make their output Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. In this opinion article, I explore the parallel view that we should take a collective stance on making the dissemination of scientific data fair in the conventional sense, by being mindful of equity and justice for patients, clinicians, academics, publishers, funders and academic institutions. The views I represent are founded on oral and written dialogue with clinicians, academics and the publishing industry. Further progress is needed to improve collaboration and dialogue between these groups, to reduce misinterpretation of metrics, to minimise inequity that arises as a consequence of geographic setting, to improve economic sustainability, and to broaden the spectrum, scope, and diversity of scientific publication.