Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the changes that occurred in journal and article publishing during the noncontact period that started in 2020 due to COVID-19. Methods: The integrated journal list in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017–2021 and the search results of Web of Science were analyzed using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. The articles, citations, impact factor (IF), publishers, open access (OA) status, and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were investigated using the data. Results: The CAGRs of articles, citations, and IFs in JCR journals increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the increase in OA articles was accompanied by a decreasing share of subscription articles. The top 20 journals in JCR-SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), based on the number of articles, accepted OA policies and showed a strong influence, accounting for 7% to 9% of all articles. MDPI and Frontiers were OA publishers included among the top 10 publishers. Large publishers maintained their competitiveness through mergers and acquisitions with OA publishers. Due to the rapid distribution of OA and early access articles as part of the international response to overcome COVID-19, the CAGRs of citations and IFs increased more than that of articles, and the publication and use of journal articles have become more active. Conclusion: The publication and use trends in JCR journals analyzed herein will provide useful information for researchers' selection of journals for article submission, analyses of research performance, and libraries' journal subscription contracts. © 2023 Korean Council of Science Editors

Timing of submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: Associations with the COVID-19 pandemic and editorial decisions.

AIM: To determine if the timing of manuscript submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (JPCH) changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine if the timing of manuscript submissions influenced editorial decisions. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of submissions to JPCH from 1 January 2015 to 1 August 2022 was performed. Regression models were used to explore the change over time. Editorial decisions were examined using a multinomial regression model with the three-category ordinal outcome of reject, revise and accept. All statistical models were fitted using a Bayesian approach and show 95% credible intervals (CI). RESULTS: The analyses included 11 499 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2022. The mean number of manuscript submissions increased by 17 papers per month (CI 15-19), with a larger 4-month long increase after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared of 86 submissions per month (CI 67-103). There was no clear effect of the pandemic on weekend submissions, mean difference in probability 0.003 (CI -0.021 to 0.026). Throughout the study period, the peak submission time was later in the day and was shifted +37 min later post-March 2020 (CI +22 to +52 min). Throughout the study period, submissions out-of-hours and on weekends were less likely to get an editorial decision of 'accept' or 'revise': odds ratio weekend versus weekday 0.87 (CI 0.78-0.97). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited effect on the timing of manuscript submissions to JPCH. However, the timing of manuscript submission impacted the likelihood of a more positive editorial decision. While the time of manuscript submission is only one part of the research process, it is postulated that it may be associated with research quality.

Analysis of PubMed and KoreaMed Indexed Korean Publications on COVID-19.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, publications on the disease have exploded globally. The present study analyzed PubMed and KoreaMed indexed COVID-19 publications by Korean researchers from January 1, 2020 to August 19, 2021. A total of 83,549 COVID-19 articles were recorded in PubMed and 1,875 of these were published by Korean authors in 673 journals (67 Korean and 606 overseas journals). The KoreaMed platform covered 766 articles on COVID-19, including 612 by Korean authors. Among the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) articles on COVID-19, PubMed covered 176 and KoreaMed 141 documents. Korean researchers contributed to 2.2% of global publications on COVID-19 in PubMed. The JKMS has published most articles on COVID-19 in Korea.

Monitoring Information Flow on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The flow of information on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is intensifying, requiring concerted efforts of all scholars. Peer-reviewed journals as established channels of scientific communications are struggling to keep up with unprecedented high submission rates. Preprint servers are becoming increasingly popular among researchers and authors who set priority over their ideas and research data by pre-publication archiving of their manuscripts on these professional platforms. Most published articles on COVID-19 are now archived by the PubMed Central repository and available for searches on LitCovid, which is a newly designed hub for specialist searches on the subject. Social media platforms are also gaining momentum as channels for rapid dissemination of COVID-19 information. Monitoring, evaluating and filtering information flow through the established and emerging scholarly platforms may improve the situation with the pandemic and save lives.

Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed by the data analysis and choosing target journals. While providing a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios most conducive to carrying out a survey, the role of ethical approval, survey validation and pilot testing, this brief delves deeper into the survey designs, methods of dissemination, the ways to secure and maintain data anonymity, the various analytical approaches, the reporting techniques and the process of choosing the appropriate journal. Further, the authors analyze retracted survey-based studies and the reasons for the same. This review article intends to guide authors to improve the quality of survey-based research by describing the essential tools and means to do the same with the hope to improve the utility of such studies.

Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists.

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.

Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. RESULTS: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). CONCLUSION: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.