Challenges for the academic editor in the scientific publication

UIDB/04647/2020 UIDP/04647/2020The academic editor has been, and still is, the gatekeeper of peer-reviewed scientific publications, by being whom, ultimately, defines whether or not a manuscript can be published. At a time of profound transformation in the context of scientific publication (digital publishing, open access, preprint, open peer review,...) and the expectations, inside and outside academia, towards academic publication, this perspective paper aims to add to the discussion of the (re)formulation of the academic editor's role, considering that he or she, in this panoply of changes, continues, and will continue to be, the ultimate guardian of the scientific quality of what is published.publishersversionpublishe

Модель фахової комунікації за посередництвом наукового журналу

Предметом дослідження стали напрями й умови взаємодії між редакціями наукових журналів, авторськими колективами та аудиторіями. У дослідженні використано метод моделювання. Розроблено модель фахової комунікації за посередництвом наукового журналу. Пізнавальні можливості моделі полягають у тому, що модель відтворює загальні риси предмета дослідження. Вибір методу дослідження зумовлено тим, що моделі легко візуалізуються, допомагають зосередитися на головному, а також дають змогу прогнозувати результат. Розроблена автором модель відображає структуру, вдастивості та взаємозв’язки між суб’єктами фахової комунікації, яка відбувається за посередництвом наукового журналу: 1) відправниками повідомлення — авторами чи авторськими колективами; 2) гейткіперами науки — редакторами і рецензентами, 3) аудиторіями. Поведінка цих суб’єктів визначається, з одного боку, загальноприйнятими етичними нормами для наукової спільноти, а з другого — мотивами й очікуваннями, які в окремих випадках можуть виходити за межі означених норм. Описано бар’єри, які обмежують мету, засоби та результати наукової комунікації. До таких бар’єрів для автора на різних етапах можна віднести проблеми з вибором теми; відсутність відкритого доступу до літератури з тематики дослідження; нестачу часу; брак матеріальної бази (реактивів, технічних засобів тощо) для проведення емпіричних досліджень; труднощі з дотриманням формальних вимог до публікацій; невміння встановлювати й підтримувати контакти зі співавторами; брак мотивації; систему вимог, дотримання якої є обов’язковим для розгляду публікації та уникнення відхилення без рецензування); низьку видимість публікації для аудиторії. Ефекти наукової комунікації, опосередкованої науковим журналом, можуть набувати різних форм: генерування нових гіпотез, ідей, спростування застарілих теорій; ухвалення рішень щодо фінансування наукових розробок; започаткування й підтримання дискусії; налагодження контактів, становлення і сегментація наукових спільнот; формування нових поведінкових нормативів для учасників наукової комунікації. Публікаційна система наукового журналу має відповідати таким критеріям: 1) широка доступність опублікованих статей, а отже — можливість використання результатів широкою аудиторією; 2) висока якість рецензування; 3) можливість відкликання статей у разі виявлення факту академічної недоброчесності.The subject of the research is the directions and conditions of interaction between the editors of scientific journals, author groups and audiences. The modeling method was used in the research. A model of professional communication has been developed through a scientific journal. The cognitive capabilities of the model are that the model reproduces the general features of the original object. The models are easy to visualize, they help to focus on the main thing, as well as allow to predict the results. The model developed by the author reflects the structure, features and relationships between the subjects of professional communication, which takes place through a scientific journal: 1) senders of the message (authors or co-authors); 2) gatekeepers of science (editors and reviewers), 3) audiences. The behavior of these subjects is determined, on the one hand, by generally accepted ethical norms for the scientific community, and on the other by motives and expectations, which in some cases may go beyond these norms. Barriers that limit the purpose, means and results of scientific communication are described. Such barriers at various stages include problems with the choice of topic; lack of open access to literature on research topics; lack of time; lack of material base (reagents, technical means, etc.) for empirical research; difficulties in complying with formal requirements for publications; inability to establish and maintain contacts with co-authors; lack of motivation; a system of requirements, compliance with which is mandatory to review the publication and avoid deviations without review); low visibility of the publication for the audience. The effects of scientific communication mediated by a scientific journal can take various forms: generating new hypotheses, ideas, refuting outdated theories; decision-making on financing of scientific developments; initiating and maintaining a discussion; networking, formation and segmentation of scientific communities; formation of new behavioral norms for participants of scientific communication. The publication system of a scientific journal must meet the following criteria: 1) wide availability of published articles, and hence the possibility of using the results by a wide audience; 2) high quality review; 3) the possibility of recalling articles in case of discovery of the fact of academic dishonesty

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on microbiology-immunology publications: Bibliometric analysis and visualization

Aim: The aim of this study is to visualize the most cited publications, the most frequently used keywords, and the topics studied in the field of "Microbiology -Immunology" before and during the pandemic and to reveal the differences between the two periods. Material and Methods: Studies registered in the Scopus database and published in the field of "Microbiology-Immunology" in 2019 and 2022 were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer program. In the keyword analysis, the most recently published and the top 2000 most cited publications in 2019 and 2022 were evaluated.Results: The most frequently used keywords in the most recent publications in 2019 were "Medicago truncatula", "malaria" and "immunotherapy", while the most cited keywords were "inflammation","microbiome" and "immunotherapy". In 2019, it was determined that most studies were on immunotherapy. In 2022, the top three most frequently used keywords in the most recently published publications were "malaria", "neuroinflammation" and "inflammation", while the most cited publications were "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" and "vaccination". As a result of the keyword analysis, it was determined that the most frequently published topics and the most cited topics were different from each other in the analysis of current studies in 2022.Discussion: Since our study reveals the changes in the literature related to our field, we think that it will be a guide in planning new studies. We believe that periodic repetition of bibliometric analyses and keyword mapping studies will contribute to the quantitative and qualitative development of scientific productivity in our field

Is a Gold Open Access World Viable for Research Universities?

Open access is at the heart of a seismic shift in scholarly publishing. In particular, gold open access (OA) has expanded at an accelerated pace, increasing in market share every year. In the gold OA model, financial viability shifts from the demand to the supply side, with article processing charges (APCs) a common scenario. Ideally, this model would be sustainable for academic research institutions, in that it would cost them cumulatively no more to pay APCs than they pay now in the traditional subscription model. APC-driven gold OA has financial and other implications for libraries, institutions, and authors. In the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation-funded Pay It Forward project, we examined the viability of gold OA by looking at institutional costs, faculty and graduate student opinions, and various models for gold OA. The Pay It Forward research teams gathered a variety of qualitative and quantitative data from publishers, research libraries, and faculty and students including current APC charges, current subscription charges, journal publication costs, opinions and behavior of graduate students and faculty members regarding publishing, reading, and OA

The University of California Pay-It-Forward Open Access Publishing Research Project: An Interview with MacKenzie Smith

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Serials Librarian on Aug. 18, 2017, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2017.1321350In 2014, University of California- Davis University Library and the California Digital Library collaborated on an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant-funded project to explore costs associated with moving scholarly journal subscriptions in the U.S. market to an entirely Article Processing Charge (APCs) business model, known also as “Gold Open Access.� We contacted MacKenzie Smith, one of the principal investigators, in order to get her reflections on the process of gathering the data, and to discuss some implications of the findings. The interview suggests that the “Pay It Forward� model could be successful over time, following a necessarily complex transition period

Online Visibility, Social Networks and Glamorous Scientific Publications

In a context of transformation of the higher education institutions’ mission, there is a growing need for the academy to respond to the needs placed both at the political and social levels, which has implications for the scholar’s expected activity. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the growing importance, besides publishing and being cited, of having visibility in the digital world. We conclude that this new dimension, which is being added to the success and legitimacy of the scholar and his/her institution, will have probable direct consequences both on the form and on the contents of future publications. The willingness of scholars to produce publications worthy of social visibility may foster a growing number of publications that are attractive, perhaps less complex and more accessible to the “uninitiated”, what we call glamorous publications

Publisher transparency among, communications and library and information science journals: analysis and recommendations

The principal goal of the research study is to analyze the transparency of a selection of academic journals based on an analysis model with 20 indicators grouped into 6 parameters. Given the evident interest in and commitment to transparency among quality academic journals and researchers' difficulties in choosing journals that meet a set of criteria, we present indicators that may help researchers choose journals while also helping journals to consider what information from the editorial process to publish, or not, on their websites to attract authors in the highly competitive environment of today's scholarly communication. To test the validity of the indicators, we analyze a small sample: the Spanish Communications and Library and Information Science journals listed in the Scimago Journal Rank. The results confirm that our analysis model is valid and can be extrapolated to other disciplines and journals

What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice

In this article we examine what motivations influence academic authors in selecting a journal in which to publish. A survey was sent to approximately 15,000 faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at four large North American research universities with a response rate of 14.4% (n = 2021). Respondents were asked to rate how eight different journal attributes and five different audiences influence their choice of publication output. Within the sample, the most highly rated attributes are quality and reputation of journal and fit with the scope of the journal; open access is the least important attribute. Researchers at other research-intensive institutions are considered the most important audience, while the general public is the least important. There are significant differences across subject disciplines and position types. Our findings have implications for understanding the adoption of open access publishing models

Imagining a Gold Open Access future: Attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship.

The viability of gold open access publishing models into the future will depend, in part, on the attitudes of authors toward open access (OA). In a survey of academics at four major research universities in North America, we examine academic authors’ opinions and behaviors toward gold OA. The study allows us to see what academics know and perceive about open access models, their current behavior in regard to publishing in OA, and possible future behavior. In particular, we gauge current attitudes to examine the perceived likelihood of various outcomes in an all-open access publishing scenario. We also survey how much authors at these types of universities would be willing to pay for article processing charges (APCs) from different sources. Although the loudest voices may often be heard, in reality there is a wide range of attitudes and behaviors toward publishing. Understanding the range of perceptions, opinions, and behaviors among academics toward gold OA is important for academic librarians who must examine how OA serves their research communities, to prepare for an OA future, and to understand how OA impacts the library’s role