Journals’ editorial policies – an analysis of the instructions for authors of Croatian open access journals

The growing number of publications presenting research findings, the pressure on scientists to produce publications in great quantity, and the shift in the business models of many journals increased importance of journals’ editorial practices, which are well represented in guidelines for preparing the manuscript for submission. Journals have a special responsibility to protect research integrity and to keep trust in journal publishing. This study looked at information on editorial practices in the instructions for authors of Croatian Open Access journals. 283 instructions for authors from all disciplines were examined according to the broad range of publishing issues grouped in hierarchically organized categories. Mostly addressed issues were manuscript layout (276/283) and journal language (269/283). The most common ethical issues among journals from all disciplines were responsibility of author (73/283), funding (52/283), and accuracy (51/283). There are several ethical issues addressed significantly more often by biomedical journals, like responsibility of authors (14/30), publishing ethics (14/30), conflict of interest (12/30), funding (11/30), and authorship (11/30). In comparison with ethical issues common publishing issues like manuscript layout, manuscript elements, and type of paper were richly represented in journals from all disciplines

Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors

Introduction: The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which Instructions to authors of the Croatian open access (OA) journals are addressing ethical issues. Do biomedical journals differ from the journals from other disciplines in that respect? Our hypothesis was that biomedical journals maintain much higher publication ethics standards. Materials and methods: This study looked at 197 Croatian OA journals Instructions to authors to address the following groups of ethical issues: general terms; guidelines and recommendations; research approval and registration; funding and conflict of interest; peer review; redundant publications, misconduct and retraction; copyright; timeliness; authorship; and data accessibility. We further compared a subset of 159 non-biomedical journals with a subset of 38 biomedical journals. Content analysis was used to discern the ethical issues representation in the instructions to authors. Results: The groups of biomedical and non-biomedical journals were similar in terms of originality (χ2 = 2.183, P = 0.140), peer review process (χ2 = 0.296, P = 0.586), patent/grant statement (χ2 = 2.184, P = 0.141), and timeliness of publication (χ2 = 0.369, P = 0.544). We identified significant differences among categories including ethical issues typical for the field of biomedicine, like patients (χ2 = 47.111, P < 0.001), and use of experimental animals (χ2 = 42.543, P < 0.001). Biomedical journals also rely on international editorial guidelines formulated by relevant professional organizations heavily, compared with non-biomedical journals (χ2 = 42.666, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Low representation or absence of some key ethical issues in author guidelines calls for more attention to the structure and the content of Instructions to authors in Croatian OA journal

New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research

Tranformation of Scholarly Publishing in the Digital Era : Scholars’ Point of View

Scholarly publishing is one of the most important activities for scholars whose career depends on publication of their research results. To find out more about the current situation regarding scholarly publishing at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb, Croatia, a research project was initiated. Findings showed strong orientation of scholars towards the most traditional publication channel in science - printed journal. Findings also revealed that scholars most frequently write their articles alone; sometimes they wait for more than a year for publication of their articles mainly in journals; they are seldom editors of journals, but they participate in work of editorial boards and they also participate in the peer review. The outcomes of this research showed that scholars are still communicating by using the infrastructure of the old paradigm of scientific communication based on printed information resources and that they suffer from the same problems as their colleagues around the world regarding communication of the results of their scientific research

Does small equal predatory? Analysis of publication charges and transparency of editorial policies in Croatian open access journals

IntroductionWe approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work. Materials and methodsWe analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrčak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies. ResultsThe majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from “predatory” journals. Almost all Hrčak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrčak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal’s origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards. ConclusionIn order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies

Information literacy and open access in Croatian academic libraries

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present results of a survey of Croatian academic libraries’ user education about open access (OA)-related issues. The concept of OA literacy will be explained, and the term will be put in the context of information literacy (IL) and scholarly communication. Design/methodology/approach An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to all the Croatian academic libraries with the aim to find out if libraries are involved in OA and to learn about plans for user education about the aspect of IL that is important for using OA information. Findings Almost all the libraries are involved in OA publishing, either through OA repositories or through OA journals. However, 22 per cent of the libraries do not educate their users about OA. Two most important IL skills in the context of OA are finding OA information and understanding OA citation advantage. Academic libraries in Croatia mostly recognize the questionable publishers as a threat for OA. However, 40 per cent of libraries do not plan any form of education about OA literacy. Practical implications The results of this research can be a basis for creating programmes of user education in academic libraries. Some problems are recognized, some skills are identified and further steps could be undertaken to improve academic library users’ OA literacy skills. Originality/value The research results contribute to understanding the importance of academic libraries in developing OA literacy of their users. The paper gives results of a survey of Croatian academic libraries and some new perspectives for authors, readers and libraries on how to evaluate OA sources using OA literacy skills