EN

Library Publishing Services for Community Authors

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Kyle Morgan

Introduction

As universities have extended services beyond their campus borders, academic libraries have engaged the cause in a variety of ways. This case study of the Cal Poly Humboldt Library details one uniquely effective method by opening publishing services to the community.

Background

While universities and libraries have served community needs through numerous programs, including by providing community authorship support, the context of community publishing points to academic library publishing services as a well-aligned solution.

Description of Program and Benefits

Using student employment to support operations, the Press at Cal Poly Humboldt has developed a robust community publishing program that fosters student voices and skill development, increases community engagement, advances solutions to critical issues, and broadens the university’s local outreach and global impact.

Conclusion

The wide-ranging benefits of community publishing encourage academic libraries to extend their publishing services to a community test case in the assessment of the impact on campus students, the library, the university, and the community.

URL : Library Publishing Services for Community Authors

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18411

EN

A pilot study investigating the relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality of real-world observational studies

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Digant Gupta, Amandeep Kaur, Mansi Malik

Introduction

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between journal Impact Factor (IF) and study quality in real-world observational studies. The secondary objective was to explore whether the association changes as a function of different study factors (study design, funding type and geographic location).

Methods

Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). IFs were obtained from journal websites. The association between journal IF and NOS score was evaluated firstly using Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and secondly using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Results

We selected 457 studies published in 208 journals across 11 consecutive systematic literature reviews (SLRs) conducted at our organization over the last 5 years. Most studies were cross-sectional and from North America or Europe. Mean (SD) NOS score was 6.6 (1.03) and mean (SD) IF was 5.2 (4.5). Overall, there was a weak positive correlation between NOS score and IF (Spearman’s coefficient (ρ) = 0.23 [95% CI: 0.13–0.31]; p < 0.001). There was no correlation between NOS score and IF for prospective cohort studies (ρ = 0.07 [95% CI:−0.12–0.25]) and industry-funded studies (ρ = 0.06 [95% CI:−0.09–0.21]). Based on ANOVA, the effect size, eta squared (η2), was 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01–0.08), indicating a small effect.

Discussion

While there is some correlation between journal quality and study quality, our findings indicate that high-quality research can be found in journals with lower IF, and assessing study quality requires careful review of study design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and significance of the findings. Notably, in industry-funded studies, no correlation was found between methodological quality and IF.

URL : A pilot study investigating the relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality of real-world observational studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1679842

EN

Comparing science communication ecosystems: towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors :  Liliann Fischer, Mike S. Schäfer , Hannah Schmid-Petri

This paper proposes a framework to guide cross-national, comparative research on science communication. Current research often relies on ad-hoc criteria for selecting countries (such as geographic proximity) or on pragmatic considerations (like data availability), which may limit the ability to capture broader contexts or identify the cases best suited for analysis.

Drawing on the ecosystems concept, we integrate theoretical perspectives on political systems, academic systems, and media systems to identify a set of ideational and structural factors that are essential for understanding country variations in science communication: political system settings, the role of the state/market, political attention to science communication, and societal values and norms.

Based on these, we suggest (and preliminarily illustrate) a typology of four ideal-types of science communication ecosystems — public-service-oriented, market-oriented, state-centred and fragmented — that could guide and should be tested in future research.

URL : Comparing science communication ecosystems: towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/148320250924054927

 

EN

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M. Odeh, Shawn M. Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

Background

Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.

Methods

The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).

URL : Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211

EN

APC waivers and Ukraine’s publishing output in Gold OA journals: Evidence from five commercial publishers

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Serhii Nazarovets

This study examines the effect of article processing charge (APC) waivers on the participation of Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access (Gold OA) journals published by the five largest academic publishers – Elsevier, SAGE, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley – during the period 2019-2024.

These publishers were selected because, in response to the full-scale war launched against Ukraine in 2022, all five introduced emergency 100% APC-waiver policies for Ukrainian authors. Using bibliometric data from the Web of Science Core Collection, the study analyses publication trends in Ukrainian-authored articles in fully Gold OA journals of these publishers before and after 2022.

The results show a marked post-2022 increase in Ukraine’s Gold OA output, particularly in journals published by Springer Nature and Elsevier. Disciplinary and publisher-specific patterns are evident, with especially strong growth in the medical and applied sciences. The findings underscore the potential of targeted support measures during times of crisis, while also illustrating the inherent limitations of APC-based publishing models in fostering equitable scholarly communication.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.12134

EN

Collective funding models for open access books: Librarians’ experiences and barriers to participation across six European contexts

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Judith Fathallah, Joe Deville, Izabella Penier, Francesca Corazza

This report seeks to understand librarians’ experiences of collective funding models for open access books, especially barriers to joining organisations like the Open Book Collective (OBC).

The OBC is one of an increasing number of organisations that are using a collective ‘Diamond’ funding model for open access, wherein libraries commit to financially support open access book publishers, and/or open infrastructure providers for a set period of time to fund their work.

The report aims to learn from differing experiences in countries with different open access policies and institutional contexts. It focuses its research on six countries in continental Europe: Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. The research includes interviews with 20 participants. Most are librarians, alongside a selection of publishers and open access experts.

It provides particular insight into how librarians understand collective funding models and their ability to become involved in them, within their national and institutional settings. This is supplemented by an analysis of existing research on collective funding models and a profile of each country’s current open access publishing context, based on an extensive literature review.

The report will be of interest to librarians seeking to build further capacity to support collective Diamond open access funding models within their institutions, as well as publishers, infrastructure providers and collaborative endeavours seeking to build collective support for the development of open access programmes.

URL : Collective funding models for open access books: Librarians’ experiences and barriers to participation across six European contexts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17339946

EN

Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Rodrigo Alejandro-Salinas, Diego A. Maticorena-Quevedo,  Alfonso Barnechea-Rey, Percy Herrera-Añazco, Vicente A. Benites-Zapata

Background 

Orthopedic scientific publications play an important role worldwide. Because of the limited evidence in the Latin American literature, we aimed to evaluate the determinants of scientific publication among Peruvian orthopedics as an approach to the Latin American context.

Methods

Analytical cross-sectional study. Orthopedic specialists and residents were enrolled during the 52nd Peruvian National Congress of Orthopedics and Traumatology. A form validated by experts was applied to collect variables. The crude and adjusted coefficients were calculated using bivariate and multivariate regression with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 310 participants were included in our study. The prevalence of the scientific orthopedic publication was 34.84%. Multivariate regression showed that, working in a private hospitals, having an interest in tumors and pediatric orthopedics, being involved in teaching activity, belonging to a scientific society other than the Peruvian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology, having more than one research project, having an international rotation, and active participation in meetings were factors associated with publishing orthopedic scientific articles, while coming from a university in the highlands as an undergraduate and having more than ten shifts per month was associated with publishing fewer scientific articles. Among residents, having had an international rotation was associated with publishing scientific articles. Conclusions: The determinants of scientific production described will serve to increase scientific production in different contexts considering the orthopedist’s training stage.

URL : Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040052