Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
FR

Saisir l’objet mouvant de la prédation dans la communication scientifique

Auteur : Innocent Azilan

Cet article examine la prédation dans la communication scientifique comme un phénomène complexe et mouvant qui dépasse la simple dichotomie entre revues « légitime » et « prédatrices ». Je propose une analyse nuancée qui identifie trois formes principales de prédation : par opportunisme (éditeurs frauduleux exploitant le modèle des frais de publication), par immaturité (revues périphériques aux capacités éditoriales limitées), et par avidité (dérives des grands éditeurs commerciaux sous pression de croissance). Je montre que la prédation n’est pas cantonnée aux marges du système scientifique mais touche également des acteurs établis.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05344926v1

Catégories
EN

Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

Authors : Erin Watson, AHI, Li Zhang

Objective

Predatory journal articles do not undergo rigorous peer review and so their quality is potentially lower. Citing them disseminates the unreliable data they may contain and may undermine the integrity of science. Using citation analysis techniques, this study investigates the influence of predatory journals in the health sciences.

Methods

The twenty-six journals in the “Medical Sciences” category of a known predatory publisher were selected. The number of articles published by these journals was recorded based on the information from their websites. The “Cited References” search function in Web of Science was used to retrieve citation data for these journals.

Results

Of the 3,671 articles published in these predatory journals, 1,151 (31.4%) were cited at least once by 3,613 articles indexed in Web of Science. The number of articles that cited articles published in predatory journals increased significantly from 64 in 2014 to 665 in 2022, an increase of 10-fold in nine years. The citing articles were published by researchers from all over the world (from high-, middle-, and lower-income countries) and in the journals of traditional and open access publishers. Forty-three percent (1,560/3,613) of the citing articles were supported by research funds.

Conclusions

The content from articles published in predatory journals has infiltrated reputable health sciences journals to a substantial extent. It is crucial to develop strategies to prevent citing such articles.

URL : Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2024

 

Catégories
EN

Shifting norms in scholarly publications: trends in readability, objectivity, authorship, and AI use

Authors : Padraig Cunningham, Padhraic Smyth, Barry Smyth

Academic and scientific publishing practices have changed significantly in recent years. This paper presents an analysis of 17 million research papers published since 2000 to explore changes in authorship and content practices. It shows a clear trend towards more authors, more references and longer abstracts.

While increased authorship has been reported elsewhere, the present analysis shows that it is pervasive across many major fields of study. We also identify a decline in author productivity which suggests that `gift’ authorship (the inclusion of authors who have not contributed significantly to a work) may be a significant factor. We further report on a tendency for authors to use more hyperbole, perhaps exaggerating their contributions to compete for the limited attention of reviewers, and often at the expense of readability.

This has been especially acute since 2023, as AI has been increasingly used across many fields of study, but particularly in fields such as Computer Science, Engineering and Business. In summary, many of these changes are causes of significant concern. Increased authorship counts and gift authorship have the potential to distort impact metrics such as field-weighted citation impact andh-index, while increased AI usage may compromise readability and objectivity.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.21725

Catégories
EN

Reforming research funding: Combining editorial preregistration with grant peer review

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Gerald Schweiger

Competitive grant funding is associated with high costs and a potential bias to favor conservative research. This comment proposes integrating editorial preregistration, in the form of registered reports, into grant peer review processes as a reform strategy.

Linking funding decisions to in principle accepted study protocols would reduce reviewer burden, strengthen methodological rigor, and provide an institutional foundation for (more) replication, theory driven research, and high risk research. Our proposal also minimizes strategic proposal writing and ensures scholarly output through the publication of preregistered protocols, regardless of funding outcomes.

Possible implementation models include direct coupling of journal acceptance with funding, co review mechanisms, voucher systems, and lotteries. While challenges remain in aligning journal and funding agency procedures, the integration of preregistration and funding offers a promising pathway toward a more transparent and efficient research ecosystem.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01439

Catégories
EN

No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

Authors : Annarita Barbaro, Maria Cristina Barbaro, Federica Napolitani

The Diamond Open Access (OA) model—characterized by the absence of fees for both authors and readers—has gained increasing attention in recent years. A wide range of scholarly journals are using this model, as emerged while mapping the Diamond OA landscape worldwide; however, some still depend on hybrid revenue streams such as print sales, subscriptions, and marginal APCs.

A number of recent initiatives underlined the need to increase quality assurance, sustainability, and cooperation within the Diamond OA ecosystem. Among them, the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS), a framework comprising detailed guidelines and a self-assessment tool to facilitate Diamond OA publishing practices, was created by the DIAMAS project, sponsored by the European Commission.

Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the official journal of the Italian leading public health research institution, is a Diamond OA journal. To improve transparency and quality, the editorial team used the DOAS self-assessment tool to evaluate its compliance with the standards proposed by DIAMAS and to identify potential areas for improvement.

This article presents the process and findings of the DOAS self-assessment tool conducted on Annali ISS, with the aim of sharing insights and support with other journals seeking to align with the DOAS framework.

URL : No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040053

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

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