Étiquette : scientific communication

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

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

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

 

Catégories
EN

Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

Authors : Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans‑Dieter Daniel

At the end of January 2023, eLife introduced a new publishing model (alongside the old-traditional-publishing model): all manuscripts submitted as preprints are peer-reviewed and published if they are deemed worthy of review by the editorial team (“editorial triage”). The model abandons the gatekeeping function and retains the previous “consultative approach to peer review”.

Even under the changed conditions, the question of the quality of judgements in the peer review process remains. In this study, the reviewers’ ratings of manuscripts submitted to eLife were examined in terms of both descriptive comparisons of peer review models, and the following selected quality criteria of peer review: interrater agreement and interrater reliability. eLife provided us with the data on all manuscripts submitted in 2023 according to the new publishing model (group 3, N = 3,846), as well as manuscripts submitted according to the old publishing model (group 1: N = 6,592 submissions from 2019; group 2: N = 364 submissions from 2023).

The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown.

The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised. We used the empirical results of our study to recommend several improvements to the new publishing model introduced by eLife as for example, increasing transparency, masking author identity or increasing the number of expert reviewers.

URL : Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y

Catégories
EN

A decentralized future for the open-science databases

Authors : Gaurav Sharma, Viorel Munteanu, Nika Mansouri Ghiasi, Jineta Banerjee, Susheel Varma, Luca Foschini, Kyle Ellrott, Onur Mutlu, Dumitru Ciorbă, Roel A. Ophoff, Viorel Bostan, Christopher E Mason, Jason H. Moore, Despoina Sousoni, Arunkumar Krishnan, Christopher E. Mason, Mihai Dimian, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Fabio G. Liberante, Taras K. Oleksyk, Serghei Mangul

Continuous and reliable access to curated biological data repositories is indispensable for accelerating rigorous scientific inquiry and fostering reproducible research. Centralized repositories, though widely used, are vulnerable to single points of failure arising from cyberattacks, technical faults, natural disasters, or funding and political uncertainties.

This can lead to widespread data unavailability, data loss, integrity compromises, and substantial delays in critical research, ultimately impeding scientific progress. Centralizing essential scientific resources in a single geopolitical or institutional hub is inherently dangerous, as any disruption can paralyze diverse ongoing research.

The rapid acceleration of data generation, combined with an increasingly volatile global landscape, necessitates a critical re-evaluation of the sustainability of centralized models. Implementing federated and decentralized architectures presents a compelling and future-oriented pathway to substantially strengthen the resilience of scientific data infrastructures, thereby mitigating vulnerabilities and ensuring the long-term integrity of data.

Here, we examine the structural limitations of centralized repositories, evaluate federated and decentralized models, and propose a hybrid framework for resilient, FAIR, and sustainable scientific data stewardship. Such an approach offers a significant reduction in exposure to governance instability, infrastructural fragility, and funding volatility, and also fosters fairness and global accessibility.

The future of open science depends on integrating these complementary approaches to establish a globally distributed, economically sustainable, and institutionally robust infrastructure that safeguards scientific data as a public good, further ensuring continued accessibility, interoperability, and preservation for generations to come.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.19206

Catégories
EN

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

Authors : Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Quentin Le Cornu, Pierre Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, Clément Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, Florian Naudet

Studies with negative results are less likely to be published than others, potentially leading to publication bias. Introduced in 2000, trial registration could have participated in decreasing the proportion of unpublished studies. We assessed the proportion of negative randomized controlled trials (RCT) over the last 20 years.

We searched Medline for RCT published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of negative (final comparison on the primary study-endpoint without statistical significance or favoring the control arm) studies published in 2000 and 2020.

Factors independently associated with the publication of negative studies were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 1,542 studies were included. The proportion of negative RCT significantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (from 27.6% to 37.4%; P = 0.01), however, the trend over time was not significant (P = 0.203). In multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher proportion of published negative studies: superiority (P < 0.001), two-group trials (P < 0.001), number of patients ≥510 (P < 0.001), cardiology trials (P = 0.003), emergency/critical care trials (P < 0.001), obstetrics trials (P = 0.032), surgery trials (P = 0.006), pneumology trials (P = 0.029).

Exclusive industry funding was associated with a lower proportion of published negative studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of published negative studies in 2020 was higher only when compared to 2000. During the two decades, no trend was noticeable. There is no clear relationship between trial registration and the publication of negative results over time.

URL : Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3535