Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Can AnatomicalTerms.info with its synonyms and succinct open definitions be a solution to address variations in usage of anatomical terminology?

Anatomy, the study of human structure, is foundational to medicine. Its language has a long history, with contributions from authors hailing from diverse cultures and countries, adhering to various scientific traditions, speaking different languages, and practicing medicine across a wide gamut of specialties. The resultant disparity in terms provides challenges both for students in learning and for interdisciplinary communication. We report here on a user-friendly look-up web site, "AnatomicalTerms.info" that links a Terminologica Anatomica term to alternative terms in usage: synonyms, polysemes, eponyms, homonyms, and terms in other languages. Accompanying open-source definitions are generated with the help of "Definition Machine" software, that supports creating the most concise and accessible definitions for anatomical terms, eschewing superfluous description, thus reducing cognitive load of learners of anatomy looking up terms. AnatomicalTerms.info is a readily accessible online source for both the authoritative and alternatively used terms that can accurately cross-reference and/or disambiguate anatomical structures across disciplinary and cultural divides. As such, it can serve as a useful educational and clinical resource that is also flexibly open to additions and expansion as anatomical and clinical needs dictate.

The Gray Zone Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Scientific Publishing

ABSTRACT Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic carreers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.

Can ChatGPT identify predatory biomedical and dental journals? A cross-sectional content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether ChatGPT can help to identify predatory biomedical and dental journals, analyze the content of its responses and compare the frequency of positive and negative indicators provided by ChatGPT concerning predatory and legitimate journals. METHODS: Four-hundred predatory and legitimate biomedical and dental journals were selected from four sources: Beall's list, unsolicited emails, the Web of Science (WOS) journal list and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). ChatGPT was asked to determine journal legitimacy. Journals were classified into legitimate or predatory. Pearson's Chi-squared test and logistic regression were conducted. Two machine learning algorithms determined the most influential criteria on the correct classification of journals. RESULTS: The data were categorized under 10 criteria with the most frequently coded criteria being the transparency of processes and policies. ChatGPT correctly classified predatory and legitimate journals in 92.5 % and 71 % of the sample, respectively. The accuracy of ChatGPT responses was 0.82. ChatGPT also demonstrated a high level of sensitivity (0.93). Additionally, the model exhibited a specificity of 0.71, accurately identifying true negatives. A highly significant association between ChatGPT verdicts and the classification based on known sources was observed (P <0.001). ChatGPT was 30.2 times more likely to correctly classify a predatory journal (95 % confidence interval: 16.9-57.43, p-value: <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT can accurately distinguish predatory and legitimate journals with a high level of accuracy. While some false positive (29 %) and false negative (7.5 %) results were observed, it may be reasonable to harness ChatGPT to assist with the identification of predatory journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: ChatGPT may effectively distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals, with accuracy rates of 92.5 % and 71 %, respectively. The potential utility of large-scale language models in exposing predatory publications is worthy of further consideration.

The gray zone between legitimate and predatory open access scientific publishing.

Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic carreers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.

[Revista Médica del IMSS: Institutional heritage and Important reference]. / Revista Médica del IMSS: patrimonio institucional e importante referente formativo.

In a context that has tended towards globalization, in which obtaining economic resources is usually the driving force of societies, information resources have frequently been treated as private goods for which one must pay. A strategy for the above has been open and free access to information, a factor of great importance for the construction of more open media.

En un contexto que ha tendido a lo globalizado, en el que la obtención de recursos económicos suele ser el motor de las sociedades, los recursos de información han sido tratados con frecuencia como bienes privados por los que hay que pagar. Una estrategia a lo anterior ha sido el acceso abierto y gratuito a la información, un factor de gran importancia para la construcción de medios más abiertos.

The impact of COVID-19 on open access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine: an in-depth analysis.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous initiatives have been implemented to ensure open access availability of COVID-19-related articles to make published articles accessible for anyone. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on open-access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles and reviews published in these fields during the COVID-19 publishing era using the Web of Science database. We analyzed several indicators between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related articles, including the number and percentage of open-access articles, the top ten cited articles, and the number of reviews. In total, 67,100 articles were published in radiology and nuclear medicine between January 2020 and June 2022. Among those, more than half (51.1%) were open-access articles. Among these publications, 2,336 were COVID-19-related, and 64,764 were non-COVID-19-related. However, articles related to COVID-19 had an open access rate of 91.5%, compared to only 49.6% of the non-COVID-19-related articles. Moreover, COVID-19-related articles had a higher percentage of highly cited and hot papers compared to articles not related to COVID-19. Moreover, most highly cited studies were related to chest computerized tomography (CT) scan findings in COVID-19 patients. The findings emphasize the significant proportion of open access COVID-19-related publications in radiology and nuclear medicine, facilitating widespread and timely access to everyone.

Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.

[Who reads the Revista Médica del IMSS? Altmetrics answer it]. / ¿Quién lee la Revista Médica del IMSS? Las métricas alternativas responden.

The Revisa Médica del IMSS is considered a track of national and international scientific dissemination that presents the results of clinical research carried out within the Institute. Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, emerged as an alternative to citation-based metrics and allow authors to visualize the impact of their works that have not received citations to identify the characteristics of the readers who consult their published article. It is important that scientific journals have accurate information from their readers, as it will provide them with an overview of the use of the information produced in their area of expertise or in their institution. This editorial explores the characteristics of the readers of the Revista Médica del IMSS through the analysis of alternative metrics available in the Dimensions database.

La Revista Médica del IMSS es considerada como un medio de divulgación científica nacional e internacional que presenta los resultados de la investigación clínica realizada dentro del Instituto. Las Altmetrics, o métricas alternativas, surgieron como una alternativa a las métricas basadas en citación y permiten a los autores visibilizar el impacto de sus trabajos que no han recibido citas para identificar las características de los lectores que consultan su artículo publicado. Es importante que las revistas científicas cuenten con información precisa de sus lectores, pues les brindará un panorama sobre el uso de la información que se produce en su área de especialidad o en su institución. En este editorial se exploran las características de los lectores de la Revista Médica del IMSS a través del análisis de las métricas alternativas disponibles en la base de datos Dimensions.

Revistas depredadoras y secuestradas en cirugía. Qué se debe saber sobre ellas y cómo evitarlas

Las revistas depredadoras (RD), constituyen una gran amenaza para la publicación contemporánea, ya que ofrecen una publicación rápida de acceso abierto a cambio de tarifas sin procedimientos de revisión por pares para científicos jóvenes o inexpertos. Son compañías que priorizan el interés propio a expensas de la academia, caracterizándose por entregar información falsa o engañosa, distorsión de las mejores prácticas editoriales y de publicación, falta de transparencia y uso de tácticas de solicitud de manuscritos indiscriminadas y agresivas. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue generar un documento de estudio sobre las RD y secuestradas; así como de las conferencias depredadoras en cirugía.

Predatory journals (PD) are a major threat to contemporary publishing, as they offer rapid open access publication for fees without peer review procedures for young or inexperienced scientists. Are companies that prioritize self-interest at the expense of academia, characterized by providing false or misleading information, misrepresentation of publishing and editorial best practices, lack of transparency, and use of indiscriminate and aggressive manuscript solicitation tactics. The aim of this manuscript was to generate a study document regarding the PD, hijacked journals and predatory conferences in surgery.

A Review and Assessment of Open Access Surgery Journals.

INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the quality of open access journals and their ability to reach target audiences. This study reviews and characterizes open access surgical journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The directory of open access journals was used to search for open access surgical journals. PubMed indexing status, impact factor, article processing charge (APC), initial year of open access publishing, average weeks from manuscript submission to publication, publisher, and peer-review processes were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-two open access surgical journals were identified. Most (n = 49, 53.3%) were indexed in PubMed. Journals established >10 y were more likely to be indexed in PubMed compared to journals established <5 y (28 of 41 [68.3%] versus 4 of 20 [20%], P < 0.001). 44 journals (47.8%) used a double-blind review method. 49 (53.2%) journals received an impact factor for 2021, ranging from <0.1 to 10.2 (median 1.4). The median APC was $362 United States dollar [interquartile range $0 - 1802 United States dollar]. 35 journals (38%) did not charge a processing fee. There was a significant positive correlation between the APC and impact factor (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). If accepted, the median time from manuscript submission to publication was 12 wk. CONCLUSIONS: Open access surgical journals are largely indexed on PubMed, have transparent review processes, employ variable APCs (including no publication fees), and proceed efficiently from submission to publication. These results should increase readers' confidence in the quality of surgical literature published in open access journals.

Gender differences in dentistry and oral sciences research productivity by researchers in Nigeria.

Background: The aim of the study was to assess gender differences in the productivity, impact, collaboration pattern and author position of dentistry and oral sciences researchers in Nigeria. Methods: We examined the Web of Science (WoS) publication records of dentistry and oral sciences researchers to assess gender differences in productivity, impact, collaboration and authorship pattern (first authorship, last authorship and corresponding author). The analysis included the number of publications in journals ranked based on their quartile rating amongst the journals in the subject area (Q1-Q4). Chi square was used to make gender comparisons. Significance was set at >5%. Results: 413 unique authors published 1,222 articles on dentistry and oral sciences between 2012 and 2021. The number of WoS documents per female author was significantly higher than that per male author (3.7 vs. 2.6, p = 0.03). A non-significantly higher percentage of females authored papers in Q2 and Q3 journals and a higher percentage of males authored papers in Q4 journals. The number of citations per female author (25.0 vs. 14.9, p = 0.04) and the percentage of females listed as first authors (26.6% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.048) were statistically greater than men. The percentage of males listed as last authors was statistically greater than females (23.6% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.04). The correlation between the percentage of papers with researchers listed as first authors and that listed as last authors was not significant for males (p = 0.06) but was significant for females (p = 0.002). A non-significantly greater percentage of females were listed as corresponding authors (26.4% vs. 20.6%) and males were listed as international (27.4% vs. 25.1%) and domestic collaborators (46.8% vs. 44.7%). Also, there was no statistically significant gender difference in the proportion of articles published in open access journals (52.5% vs. 52.0%). Conclusion: Though there were significant gender differences in the productivity, impact, and collaboration profile of dentistry and oral sciences researchers in Nigeria, the higher female research productivity and impact may be driven by cultural gender nuances that needs to be explored further.

Designing clinical guidelines that improve access and satisfaction in the emergency department.

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based clinician decision-support tools that improve health outcomes, reduce patient harm, and decrease healthcare costs, but are often underused in emergency departments (EDs). This article describes a replicable, evidence-based design-thinking approach to developing best practices for guideline design that improves clinical satisfaction and usage. We used a 5-step process to enhance guideline usability in our ED. First, we conducted end-user interviews to identify barriers to guideline usage. Second, we reviewed the literature to identify key principles in guideline design. Third, we applied our findings to create a standardized guideline format, incorporating rapid cycle learning and iterative improvements. Fourth, we ensured the clinical validity of our updated guidelines by using a rigorous process for peer review. Lastly, we evaluated the impact of our guideline conversion process by tracking clinical guidelines access per day from October 2020 to January 2022. Our end-user interviews and review of the design literature revealed several barriers to guideline use, including lack of readability, design inconsistencies, and guideline complexity. Although our previous clinical guideline system averaged 0.13 users per day, >43 users per day accessed the clinical guidelines on our new digital platform in January 2022, representing an increase in access and use exceeding 33,000%. Our replicable process using open-access resources increased clinician access to and satisfaction with clinical guidelines in our ED. Design-thinking and use of low-cost technology can significantly improve clinical guideline visibility and has the potential to increase guideline use.

Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. OBJECTIVE: In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs. METHODS: We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. RESULTS: Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (ß=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges. CONCLUSIONS: OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis.

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal- and article-related information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.