Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

Authors : Cigdem Kadaifci, Erkan Isikli, Y. Ilker Topcu

Academic papers are essential for researchers to communicate their work to their peers and industry experts. Quality research is published in prestigious scientific journals, and is considered as part of the hiring and promotion criteria at leading universities. Scientific journals conduct impartial and anonymous peer reviews of submitted manuscripts; however, individuals involved in this process may encounter issues related to the duration, impartiality, and transparency of these reviews.

To explore these concerns, we created a questionnaire based on a comprehensive review of related literature and expert opinions, which was distributed to all stakeholders (authors, reviewers, and editors) who participated in the peer-review process from a variety of countries and disciplines. Their opinions on the primary issues during the process and suggestions for improvement were collected. The data were then analysed based on various groups, such as gender, country of residence, and contribution type, using appropriate multivariate statistical techniques to determine the perceptions and experiences of participants in the peer-review process.

The results showed that unethical behaviour was not uncommon and that editors and experienced reviewers encountered it more frequently. Women and academics from Türkiye were more likely to experience ethical violations and perceived them as more ethically severe. Incentives and stakeholder involvement were seen as ways to enhance the quality and impartiality of peer review. The scale developed can serve as a useful tool for addressing difficulties in the peer-review process and improving its effectiveness and performance.

URL : Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1637

Two scholarly publishing cultures? Open access drives a divergence in European academic publishing practices

Authors : Leon Kopitar, Nejc Plohl, Mojca Tancer Verboten, Gregor Štiglic, Roger Watson, Dean Korošak

The current system of scholarly publishing is often criticized for being slow, expensive, and not transparent. The rise of open access publishing as part of open science tenets, promoting transparency and collaboration, together with calls for research assesment reforms are the results of these criticisms. The emergence of new open access publishers presents a unique opportunity to empirically test how universities and countries respond to shifts in the academic publishing landscape. These new actors challenge traditional publishing models, offering faster review times and broader accessibility, which could influence strategic publishing decisions.

Our findings reveal a clear division in European publishing practices, with countries clustering into two groups distinguished by the ratio of publications in new open access journals with accelerated review times versus legacy journals. This divide underscores a broader shift in academic culture, highlighting new open access publishing venues as a strategic factor influencing national and institutional publishing practices, with significant implications for research accessibility and collaboration across Europe.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06282

Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed-methods analysis of artificial intelligence-assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplines

Author : Shai Farber

This mixed-methods study evaluates the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted reviewer selection in academic publishing across diverse disciplines. Twenty journal editors assessed AI-generated reviewer recommendations for a manuscript. The AI system achieved a 42% overlap with editors’ selections and demonstrated a significant improvement in time efficiency, reducing selection time by 73%.

Editors found that 37% of AI-suggested reviewers who were not part of their initial selection were indeed suitable. The system’s performance varied across disciplines, with higher accuracy in STEM fields (Cohen’s d = 0.68). Qualitative feedback revealed an appreciation for the AI’s ability to identify lesser-known experts but concerns about its grasp of interdisciplinary work. Ethical considerations, including potential algorithmic bias and privacy issues, were highlighted.

The study concludes that while AI shows promise in enhancing reviewer selection efficiency and broadening the reviewer pool, it requires human oversight to address limitations in understanding nuanced disciplinary contexts. Future research should focus on larger-scale longitudinal studies and developing ethical frameworks for AI integration in peer-review processes.

URL : Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed-methods analysis of artificial intelligence-assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1638

Publish or perish? Innovative models for scholarly publishing in Zimbabwe

Authors : Nomsa Chirisa, Mpho Ngoepe

Innovative publishing models have emerged to meet the demands of the ‘publish or perish’ philosophy prevalent in academic and scholarly circles. Publishing models serve as the operational blueprint underpinning the value and supply chains of products in the publishing industry, aligning operational plans, design strategies, and production methodologies with the overarching goal of scholarly publishing. The duty of scholarly publishers to advance knowledge and disseminate it widely necessitates their role in supporting researchers to meet the expectations of the ‘publish or perish’ culture.

This philosophy becomes even more critical in the endangered landscape of scholarly publishing in Africa, where scholarly publishing is evidently perishing, as researchers in the region face additional challenges in accessing reputable publishing outlets for their work. Zimbabwe has a low research publishing output, and although it ranks second in southern Africa, it lags behind South Africa by an astounding 65%. This intensifies the pressure to publish to maintain visibility and credibility within the global academic community.

This paper thus examines the publishing models implemented in the publishing of scholarly works by scholarly publishers in Zimbabwe. Qualitative data were collected through the Delphi Technique design, with publishing experts over three rounds of interviews, and triangulated with data from document analysis.

The key findings indicate open access, self-publishing, and collaborative publishing as effective market models for university presses. However, Zimbabwean universities are still lagging behind, as few have established university presses.

URL : Publish or perish? Innovative models for scholarly publishing in Zimbabwe

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241289916

The Costs of Open Access Publication: A Case Study at Catalan Universities

Authors : Ángel Borrego, Lluís Anglada

This article explores the financial dynamics of open access (OA) publication in Catalan universities by combining four data sources: publication data coupled with article processing charge (APC) estimates; information on journal subscriptions, transformative agreements and APC payments made by universities; acknowledgements of APC funding sources in OA scholarly outputs; and a survey of authors.

The findings reveal a consistent increase in OA publication across Catalan universities, with 60% of the articles indexed in the Web of Science being published in either gold or hybrid OA in 2022. In parallel, investment in the research publishing system shows an upward trend. Resources allocated to journal subscription licenses have been redirected towards transformative agreements, leading to a rise in hybrid OA publications. Additional budget allocations have been made to accommodate APCs for gold OA journals.

Authors employ varied funding sources for gold and hybrid OA, with university funding programmes and research grants commonly facilitating gold OA, while transformative agreements often support hybrid OA. Authors associated with Catalan universities frequently benefit from funding schemes and transformative agreements that are accessible to their coauthors.

However, survey responses underscore the multifaceted nature of researchers’ financial support, including personal assets and waivers. Authors express frustration with the evolving OA landscape, particularly concerning the exorbitant publication fees.

Nevertheless, the allure of high-impact journals and expedited peer review processes continues to incentivize authors towards gold OA. Researchers voice concerns regarding the lack of equitable funding programmes and potential conflicts of interest within gold OA models, which signals the risk of compromising peer review integrity to prioritize profits.

This study underscores the need for further research to deepen our understanding of scholarly publishing expenditure and inform strategies for fostering a sustainable, equitable OA ecosystem.

URL : The Costs of Open Access Publication: A Case Study at Catalan Universities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.19069

When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on APCs in four countries

Authors : Osvaldo Gallardo, Matías Milia, André Luiz Appel, Grip-APC Team, François van Schalkwyk

This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers.

The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined.

Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements.

This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12144

Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

Authors : Behrooz Rasuli, Majid Nabavi

Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, medical publishers rose to the occasion, moving to make their full portfolio of COVID-19–related research available to read for free and expediting peer review and production processes. With such a rapid transition from paper submission to publication, however, concerns also arose regarding whether the quality of the research publication process was being affected. This article seeks to document the transformation of medical publishers’ practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and briefly discuss where they may go from here. For this goal, a literature search was performed in PubMed at several points to identify papers that reported early trends in how medical publishers handled COVID-19 research.

URL : Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1625