We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems’ resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this “diversity” in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading ( Females represent half of the global population but are still underrepresented in most work fields, mainly in politics and economics . In the Gender bias in the academic environment has multiple dimensions and causes manifested in society, home, workplace, and individuals . Girls ai.e., senior) authors  in the field over time (per se (In the double-anonymized peer review process (hereafter: DA peer review), author and reviewer identities are concealed. This peer review has been proposed as an efficient strategy to reduce biases against gender, institutions, country of origin, new ideas, authors’ prestige, and young scientists . Furtherver time , rather  , we investigate the impact of the DA peer-reviewing process on the gender authorship patterns of EcoEvo scientific journals. Specifically, we hypothesize that the frequency of publications with female-leading authorships is higher under a DA peer-reviewing policy when compared to the SA policy (H1). Moreover, we hypothesize that adopting the DA peer-review policy has increased the frequency of female-leading articles on time in journals that changed their peer-review process (H2).Here, using a comprehensive dataset from 18 journals encompassing different thematic areas within ecology and evolution (https://jcr.help.clarivate.com/). From the 142 journals recovered by our search, we then selected journals that strictly included the following words in their scope: “Ecology and Evolution”, “Ecology”, “Evolution”, and “Evolutionary Biology”. This preliminary search yielded 135 selected journals  that were classified within the wide ecology and evolution field. We restricted our search for journals with the 2020 impact factor (IF) equal to or higher than one, according to the Clarivate WOS database  and DA  peer-reviewed EcoEvo journals , the number of authors, and the author’s country affiliation to each article. The data was scraped from the websites of the EcoEvo journals using the rvest package , scientific platforms such as Scopus and Google Scholar, and institutional databases that include gender pronouns. When the author’s pronouns were not available, we predicted their binary gender based on their given names’ conventional gender. Although we acknowledge that a binary gender classification excludes several gender identities, the lack of information concerning non-binary gender diversity in the academic environment precluded the inclusion of those identities in our analyses.We obtained information about the first and last (senior) author’s names  using the binomial family and logit link function . Each are.g., article sample size and impact factor, As the variables time (year of publication) and the number of authors may affect the female authorship patterns  with them) and conditional (R2c) coefficients of determination (We performed the GLMMs using the “glmer” function from the ‘lme4’ package . To assemination  using thmination . All anamination .N = 41), our dataset resulted in 2,231 analyzed articles  and adopting the DA peer-review policy did not increase the representativeness of female researchers as first or senior authors over time in EcoEvo journals (H2).Adopting a DA peer-review process is usually considered a possible solution to reduce the gender gap in academic publications . HoweverThe American Naturalist and Animal Behaviour, meaning that the authors can opt between hiding or showing their identities to the reviewers. In the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, the reviewers’ names can be shared with authors if they sign their reviews. Mammal Review indicates in their authors’ guideline section that papers with conflicts of interest may not be suitable for DA, while Behavioral Ecology informs that the author’s identity is “as much as possible” kept from reviewers. These uncertainties highlight the difficulties in actually implementing the DA peer review, which might be affecting our results.Although the nine journals included here as DA or switched-review claim to follow a DA peer-review process, their actual implementation is not guaranteed. For example, the DA is optional in Preparing and reviewing a DA paper demands both authors’ and reviewers’ specific care to ensure their anonymity . RevieweThe lack of gender equality in the authorship of papers published in DA journals could also indicate that conscious and unconscious gender biases are still pervasive in the peer-review process, which may be related to the gender bias in editorial boards of EcoEvo journals . Female Journals should move towards a better implementation of the DA peer review aiming to fight intrinsic biases of the peer-review process, but the adoption of the DA review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in scientific publications. In this sense, before adopting the DA peer-review policy, the first step to promoting gender equality in EcoEvo publications is promoting gender-equitableness in these editorial boards . In addiThe underrepresentation of women in leadership positions also emerges as a potential explanation for the minority of females as leading authors in scientific articles, especially as the senior author as evidenced here. Even considering that female participation in STEM and specifically in biological sciences has been increasing in the last years, females are still underrepresented in senior positions . Female e.g., women, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ researchers) have different barriers to keeping and advancing in a scientific career. For instance, female researchers from Latin American countries deal with the intersection of sexism, colonialism, and racism  is important to ecosystems’ resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this “diversity” in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.10.7717/peerj.15186/supp-1Supplemental Information 1Click here for additional data file.10.7717/peerj.15186/supp-2Supplemental Information 2Click here for additional data file.


JVDI Editors and the AAVLD Executive Board were eager to get feedback on authors’ satisfaction with the JVDI editorial process. Manuscript submissions have declined somewhat from a peak in 2020 (COVID pandemic related?), as has occurred across the board for Sage and other journals, and we wanted to investigate possible reasons for the decline. Hence, in April 2023, we sent a SurveyMonkey questionnaire to the corresponding authors of articles published in JVDI in 2021 or 2022. We received 53 responses to the surveys sent to 265 JVDI corresponding authors. Here is a summary of responses:Q1. Why did you select JVDI for your article?All 53 respondents commented. Most noted that the scope of the journal was appropriate to their topic, that their target audience would be reached, that JVDI has a good reputation, or that the journal’s impact was suitable. Six noted specifically that JVDI publishes case reports.Q2. Were JVDI Instructions for authors easy to follow?Very satisfied (23), satisfied (26), neutral (4), dissatisfied (0).Q3. Was submission through SAGE Track efficient?Very satisfied (26), satisfied (26), neutral (1), dissatisfied (0).Q4. Was the time to first decision for your submission satisfactory?Very satisfied (16), satisfied (24), neutral (10), dissatisfied (1), very dissatisfied (2).Q5. Were your images handled to your satisfaction?Very satisfied (26), satisfied (24), neutral (2), dissatisfied (1), very dissatisfied (0).Q6. What did you like most about submitting to JVDI?Of the 50 comments received, most reflected positively on the rigor of the peer-review process, constructive comments from reviewers and editors, and the interactions with reviewers and editors.Q7. Would anything in your interaction with JVDI prevent you from submitting to JVDI again?Most respondents (39 of 51) had no reservations about submitting again; 12 of 51 had reservations based on longer-than-expected turnaround times or unsatisfactory interactions with reviewers or editors; 3 would likely not submit again. Survey responses were anonymous; hence follow-up on specific concerns is not possible. I’m happy to receive author feedback, both positive and negative, on individual submissions.Q8. What is your overall level of satisfaction with publishing in JVDI?Very satisfied (26), satisfied (21), neutral (1), dissatisfied (3), very dissatisfied (1).Q9. How many other peer-reviewed publications have you authored or co-authored in the past 2 years?Range of 0–35 publications from the 53 respondents; mean of 7 other publications in 2021–2022; published in > 90 different journals .Q10. Other comments to the JVDI Editorial Board for improving the JVDI publishing experience are welcome.Of the 24 comments, most were complimentary or even laudatory of the editorial process; one author was very dissatisfied with the editor’s comments. One author noted an inconsistency between our Instructions and our Best Practices PowerPoint—we have revised these documents accordingly. One author would like speedier editing and final publication timing. We continue to review the elapsed times in the various steps of our review, editing, and publication process, and we have tightened them as much as possible .Journal, a full-issue cover-to-cover PDF is then freely available to AAVLD members.Soliciting peer reviews can be arduous. My record to date is of 18 potential reviewers declining, or being unavailable, to review! Inviting alternative reviewers then prolongs the elapsed review time. Delays in finding willing reviewers are inescapable. We try to reward reviewers by copying the other reviewer’s comments to them, sharing the responses of authors and editors with reviewers, and publishing an annual thank you to reviewers. Sage offers reviewers 60-d complimentary online access to all journals published by Sage, as well as a 25% discount on all Sage books ordered online. Sage also collaborates with Publons to give reviewers recognition for their peer review contributions. Once in the hands of Sage, accepted articles are published quickly online and abstracts are available to all; once compiled into an issue of the  78% of our readers were satisfied overall with JVDI and found our content relevant to current events, to their jobs, and to continuing education. There was continued strong support for publication of case reports, as also noted in our 2022 readership survey, which meshes with the 2021–2022 submissions from corresponding authors. As always, readers (who are often authors) would like to see a faster review process and prompter publication, but most recognize that editors and reviewers are volunteers with competing priorities; we do our best to enforce deadlines.As noted in our 2017 AAVLD communications survey,Instructions for authors and Best practices for submitting, reviewing, and publishing manuscripts in JVDI  to facilitate trouble-free production and submission of manuscripts.We will continue to update our Editor-in-ChiefGrant Maxie, DVM, PhD, DACVP


Innovative Surgical Sciences, founded as Gold Open Access Journal by the German Society of Surgery in 2016 [The German Society of Surgery and the publisher DeGruyter would like to thank all members of the Editorial Board, all authors and their coworkers as well as all reviewers for their continuous support of the journal. Without these efforts and the constant dedication to the journal, such a success after a relatively short period following the launch of the journal in 2016 would not have been possible – thank you very much!Additionally, gaining an impact factor as an open access journal shows that open access has become a well-established publication method. More and more originally pure print journals with very high reputation switch to open access formats , 4. OpenNow, that the impact factor is reality, one could say: mission accomplished! Although the impact factor was one aim to achieve, it needs to be said that this is just the beginning! The impact factor encourages to put even more effort in the aim to fully establish the journal within the surgical scientific community.In the last years the journal experienced some changes which seemed to be relevant and necessary. The layout was changed from green to blue to fulfill the requirements for a consequent marketing strategy of the German Society of Surgery, which also changed the color. Furthermore, all abstracts of the congress of the German Society of Surgery were published open access as a supplement to the journal so that the congress and the abstracts reach a wide surgical community. To fully support the various surgical societies which are members of the German Society of Surgery a National Editorial Board was established. This board should result in a greater participation of all surgical subspecialties in designing the content and the articles published in Innovative Surgical Sciences.Since the launch in 2016 Innovative Surgical Sciences is listed in all relevant data bases, and the journal has been in Pubmed for some years which may also be another reason for gaining the impact factor. Additionally, the actual Scopus Cite Score is 4.5, so that we feel that our road map for the future is correct. In comparison to other journals, one issue which we strictly follow is the publication of all reviews of the double-blind-review process. To our feeling, this is essential for the transparency of scientific communication, and it is the unique selling point of Innovative Surgical Sciences. Hereby, we also can communicate a rejection rate of 52 % for the years 2021 and 2022.Our aim for the years to come is clearly defined to further increase the impact factor. This aim may be achieved by a broader internationalization of the journal, by an increase of the publication modus which is 4× per year now and by further strengthening the strategy of the journal to be a communication tool for all surgical specialties. At the same time, we will do our utmost to keep the highest possible standards in the review process to guarantee publications of high scientific value. Since the impact factor is just one quality instrument, we will also work on other metric data to be published, because downloads, shared articles, and communication in social media gain more and more relevance. As our world changes day-by-day, so will Innovative Surgical Sciences!


Although there is no standard definition, predatory journals generally subvert the traditional peer-reviewed system for financial gain. Common practices of predatory journals include publishing almost all submissions, a lack of transparency about publication fees, aggressive solicitation of contributors irrespective of relevant expertise and credentials, and even closely mimicking names of reputable journals—effectively acting as a decoy to attract authors and readers. Left unchecked, these journals have the potential to threaten the evidence base relied on by managed care pharmacists.The preponderance of journals with dubious publishing practices has resulted in a new term in academic publishing: Given the importance of peer-reviewed literature to managed care pharmacy practice, how is one to discern between a predatory journal and a reputable one? There are 5 key practices that distinguish reputable journals. First, reputable journals rely on peer reviewers who are experts in their respective fields to carefully review submitted manuscripts for suitability to publish. Second, reputable journals have a board of experts in relevant areas that serve in an advisory capacity to the editorial staff. Third, reputable journals follow recognized publishing standards to guide their policies, which range from determining authorship, to journal management, to handling allegations of misconduct. Fourth, reputable journals are transparent and fair about their levied fees, avoiding any real or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, reputable journals are indexed in searchable databases that have quality selection criteria for inclusion.These 5 criteria should be used by managed care authors and researchers when determining where to publish their papers and whether to serve as an editorial board member or peer reviewer when requested. Studies published in journals meeting these criteria can be deemed as reputable and suitable for review by managed care and health policymakers. It is essential that everyone involved in producing and using peer-reviewed literature is informed about the threat of predatory publishing and avoids engaging in any activities with these journals. Peer-reviewed publishing is a sacred bedrock of the scientific process and scholarship. Without the published literature, we would not have the very evidence required to practice evidence-based medicine and pharmacy. We would lack authoritative references to support treatment recommendations and policy decisions. And, dissemination of scientific innovation would lack the checks and balances pharmacists and policymakers rely on to discern credible work.1 The American Medical Writers Association, the European Medical Writers Association, and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals define journals that subvert the peer-review publication system for the sole purpose of financial gain with little evident concern for ethical behavior as predatory.Yet peer-reviewed publishing is being threatened by the emergence and growth of predatory journals, according to a joint statement from 3 prominent medical writing societies.2 Beginning in 2008, Beall maintained a publicly available website that cataloged predatory publishers and journals, allowing users to check whether a given journal was considered predatory according to his own defined criteria.3 The website was taken down mid-2017 under media speculation that he may have been forced to take down the site because of threats or lawsuits.4 Nevertheless, the spirit of his work prevails in various venues, including a website with the cached copy of Beall’s most recent list , a Blacklist  and Whitelist  available for a fee from Cabells Scholarly Analytics (http://www2.cabells.com/), and the Think.Check.Submit campaign to help researchers identify trusted journals (https://thinkchecksubmit.org/).The term “predatory journals” is attributed to Jeffery Beall, DSc, a librarian at the University of Colorado.Journal of Advances in Internal Medicine or Annals of Medical and Biomedical Sciences can be easily confused with top-tier journals such as the Annals of Internal Medicine.3 Predatory journals are also known for aggressively soliciting authors, editors, and board members, often without relevant expertise or credentials. For example, I was recently invited to submit a paper on “mathematically oriented engineering science and simulation”—a topic far outside of my area of expertise. I suspect many of my peers and colleagues have received similar invitations to join editorial boards or submit papers. Both activities are regarded as professional distinctions and ways for experts to give something back to their respective professions; as such, people may be inclined to accept, not realizing they are engaging with a predatory journal.Beall’s termed predatory journals practice a range of dubious behaviors. Several closely mimic the name of well-known reputable journals. Listed titles such as the 5 Researchers from the Hanken School of Economics in Finland purport that most authors are not tricked into predatory publications, but instead take a calculated risk.6 They attribute these unscrupulous actions at least in part to institutions in developing countries that are being held to the same publishing standard as developed nations, yet they lack the means to succeed in such a model. At the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (JMCP), we have observed a substantial increase in submissions from developing countries in recent years; however, most of these submissions are rejected because they lack relevance to our readers. Our experience at JMCP suggests that there is an increase in publishing efforts from these developing countries but can go no further in supporting the hypothesis made by the Hanken authors.With the pressure in academic institutions to “publish or perish,” some authors may even knowingly seek out predatory journals to advance their careers. A small study at a Canadian business school found that the majority of faculty had published in predatory journals, and there was a positive correlation between predatory publications and receipt of internal research awards.10 These resources can be extremely useful when evaluating a particular journal; however, they provide readers with little detail about the publishing practices of reputable journals. In this article, I explain 5 publishing practices that distinguish credible journals from predatory journals, using JMCP as an illustrative example  a Word version of the article with comments and edits using track changes and (2) a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet quantifies the domains of relevancy, originality, quality, bias, and clarity of writing. The scoring sheet also includes a publication recommendation . In an effort to ensure quality reviews, the peer reviewers themselves are also subjected to peer review by the journal editors. When editors review the scoring sheets and comments submitted by peer reviewers, they use the information to rate the output of each peer reviewer . This rating is included in the peer-reviewer database. Over time, reviewers with low-quality reviews will not be invited by editors to review future articles.Although the details of the peer-review process may vary by journal, authors should expect a thorough peer review when they submit a paper. A review returned to the author with few or no comments should be considered suspect, since every paper has room for improvement when reviewed by experts in the field. Further, a review that is promised in a matter of days should be considered suspect. The rigorous peer-review process just described is time consuming. Authors should expect that journals and reviewers dedicate a reasonable amount of time to reviewing their work.2.11As with most organizations, reputable journals assemble a board of experts in relevant areas to serve in an advisory capacity. For newer journals, board members are often responsible for conducting peer reviews and submitting papers. Board members for mature journals generally focus more on defining journal policies and promoting the journal within their spheres of influence. Additional responsibilities may include solicitation of authors and peer reviewers, identification of topics for themed issues, and advising the editors. Board members are typically volunteers selected by the editor. Editors aim to construct a board that matches the scope of the journal in terms of subject matter expertise and geography. Boards should also be diverse in expertise, experience, and demographics. Although women are underrepresented across pharmacy journal editorial boards, the gender gap is narrowing.JMCP maintains an editorial advisory board composed of experts in managed care pharmacy. The primary function of the board is to ensure that JMCP is of the highest quality, is practice changing, and improves patient health care outcomes through scientific content relevant to managed care pharmacy. The board maintains 20-25 volunteer members who are solicited through an open call for volunteers each fall. To be selected, an applicant must have a history of serving as a high-quality peer reviewer for JMCP and be an experienced editor, reviewer, or author. Further, our editorial advisory board composition reflects the scope of our journal, with representation from academia, pharmacy benefit managers, health plans, pharmaceutical companies, integrated delivery networks, and consultancies.In contrast, many predatory journals have editorial boards, but they may consist of members who lack expertise pertaining to the scope of the journal, are unknown to experts in the field, or reside outside of the country in which the journal is published . Predatory journals are known for aggressively soliciting editorial board members and have been reported to “appoint” authors to their board without the person’s knowledge.12 The team created a fictitious scientist named Dr. Anna O. Szust (Oszust is Polish for “fraud”) and applied on her behalf to the editorial boards of 360 journals, using a fictitious curriculum vitae with fake journals and book titles. Forty predatory journals  appointed her as editor, some within mere hours of being contacted. In contrast, no journals indexed by the Web of Science, an indicator of journal quality (see #5 below for a discussion of indexing), appointed Dr. “Fraud” as editor.The extent of deception is depicted by a well-known “sting” operation carried out by a team of psychologists across Europe.Although the extent of these devious practices by journals can trick even the savviest of authors, users should search a journal’s website for information on its editorial advisory board and its members when evaluating a journal.3.14 both of which are followed by JMCP. Reputable journals will use these, or similar sources, to guide their practices.Just as there are clinical guidelines for the practice of medicine, there are publication guidelines for use by academic journals. These guidelines recommend best practices for topics including authorship designation, journal management, and handling allegations of misconduct. The 2 most widely used U.S. journal guidelines are the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and the Core Practices by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),Some predatory journals may claim to follow these guidelines but instead intentionally misrepresent their own practices. It may be impossible for an author to identify a journal that intentionally misrepresents its publishing practices at face value. Therefore, authors should become familiar with these guidelines and formulate expectations for working with reputable journals. Then, authors will be more likely to spot unscrupulous practices when they occur.4.JMCP has always been an open access journal. The publisher, AMCP, and the editorial team continue to stand behind the principle that access to published scientific research should be free and open.Peer-reviewed journals require business models to operate. Expenses can include publishers or publishing staff, website, electronic submission system, printing, and shipping costs. Although more articles are being published electronically, non-print costs still must be covered. Many journals cover expenses by requiring readers to subscribe to the journal or pay a fee to read an article. However, a push to make science more accessible has led to more journals becoming open access, meaning publications are available at no cost to the reader. However, as journals move to an open access model, charging authors a processing or publication fee is one way to generate revenue to cover journal expenses. This is sometimes called “pay to publish.” Other factors contributing to this practice include declining pharmaceutical advertising in print journals and the switch to web-based publishing.Processing fees can be tricky business for journals. There is an inherent conflict of interest in this model because the journal may be financially incentivized to accept papers, since accepted papers result in revenue. Journals that rely almost exclusively on publication fees tend to be less discerning in the articles they publish and generally less reputable. An author should not assume that any journal that requires a fee is predatory, since many reputable journals do so today. However, authors should expect the journal to be transparent about its fees. For example, a journal should not levy a surprise required fee that is only disclosed after an article has been accepted.JMCP is open access, and we do not require a processing fee for our authors. However, many of our authors are interested in a quicker route to publication. To meet this need, we have an optional expedited publication—for a fee—which shortens the time from final acceptance to publication from approximately 4 months down to 5 weeks. We call this our Express E-publication option. To avoid any real or perceived influence on the publication decision, we only offer this option to our authors after the article has been accepted. In this way, there is no financial incentive for the editors to accept a given article. The fee covers expedited publication costs and contributes to the overall operating budget of the journal. Although many of our authors choose this option because they are highly interested in a rapid publication, the traditional route to print with no fee is always available to all authors.5.15 Journals are only reviewed for inclusion in MEDLINE 3 times per year, so new journals may not yet be indexed. Similarly, to be included in Web of Science, a team of editors reviews each journal against 28 criteria evaluating editorial rigor and best practices.16JMCP is indexed in MEDLINE and the Web of Science.Practitioners and researchers use databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science to search the peer-reviewed literature. Journals indexed in these databases have passed a selection process to be included, so users can generally trust them to be reputable. To be indexed in MEDLINE, part of the National Library of Medicine PubMed system, a journal must meet extensive evaluation criteria related to quality of content, quality of editorial work, and production quality.In short, practitioners and researchers can continue to use these databases and be confident that their searches will not yield articles published in predatory journals. Users should remember, however, that a journal that is not indexed should not automatically be assumed to be predatory; it may simply be too new to be listed.JMCP, and other published resources,10 can aid users in this discernment. Managed care authors and researchers should consider these criteria when determining where to publish their papers and whether or not to serve as an editorial board member or peer reviewer when requested. Managed care and other health care policymakers should consider these criteria when identifying studies for consideration in their decision making.Given the growth of and aggressive tactics used by predatory journals, authors and readers must learn how to distinguish these publications from trusted, reputable journals. The criteria described herein, the publishing practices of Although peer-reviewed publishing must evolve to keep pace with the rapid growth of data and analytics in medicine, the field can never compromise on ethical and rigorous publishing practices. Predatory journals pose a threat to the very bedrock of the scientific process. It is incumbent upon all members of the scholarly institution—authors, reviewers, and readers—to protect peer-reviewed publishing by avoiding engagement in any activities with predatory journals. The public’s health depends on it.


The Covid-19 pandemic impacted scientific publishing, though it's effect on publication times in urology literature is unknown. The objective of our study were to determine and compare acceptance and publication times in general and specific urology journals, and to quantify these times before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.We identified all original articles published in seven urology journals in 2019 and 2021, and extracted data on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication times. Differences between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.A total of 2880 articles were included, comprising 1601 articles published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Less experimental/animal studies were published in 2021 compared to 2019 (197 vs. 289). Time between submission and online publication was longer in 2021 , though acceptance times were not different . Prostate  and Word Journal of Urology (median 2.9 months) had the shortest acceptance time in 2021. Time between submission and in-print publication ranged from 4.6 months (IQR: 3.6–6.8) for Prostate to 11.9 months (IQR: 9.8–13.2) for World Journal of Urology. Acceptance times were significantly longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate. Moreover, time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics. The median time to in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021).We identified journal specific acceptance and publication times and observed substantial differences between urology journals for the years 2019 and 2021. Timely The Covid-19 pandemic had many effects on scientific publishing the past two years. More articles were submitted during the Covid-19 pandemic, which put a strain on the publishing system . MoreoveThe extent of submission and acceptance times may be an important journal parameter authors could take into account when selecting journals to submit their research to, alongside other factors such as the journal's impact factor and the fit of the research with the journal's aims and scope . Publica22.1We reviewed all original articles published by seven urology journals with data available on submission and acceptance dates for issues published in 2019 and 2021 (each from January until December). The year 2020 was not included in our analysis given that for some journals with an extended time between submission and publication, the portion of articles submitted during the Covid-19 pandemic would be more easily skewed towards journals with a fast turnaround time regarding (online) publication. All articles published in the year 2021 were papers submitted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journals were selected based on the Journal Citation Reports 2021, and included Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, World Journal of Urology, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Prostate, and Journal of Pediatric Urology in order to include aspects of different fields within urology. Articles were excluded if they were supplements, case reports, editorials, technical notes, commentaries, letters to the editor, opinions, and non-systematic/narrative literature reviews. Narrative reviews were excluded because a no systematic review search is usually used in these types of articles. Moreover, a portion of journals commissioned and invited authors for narrative reviews, which could have an influence on publication times. Data were extracted on the country of the corresponding author, study design  and dates on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication. We calculated the time between submission and acceptance; time between acceptance and online publication; time between acceptance and in print publication; and time between submission and in print publication.2.2U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric data. To evaluate the times from submission to acceptance and publication, we utilized Kaplan-Meier analyses. Statistical analysis was performed using R, version 3.6.3 . Statistical significance was set at a p-value < 0.05.Continuous data were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR), and categorical data as frequencies and percentages. Differences between groups on study design, country, and articles on Covid-19 were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney 33.1A total of 2880 articles were included in the current study, of which 1601 were published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases was the journal with the highest impact factor (5.455), whereas the Journal of Pediatric Urology had the lowest impact factor (1.921). Most journals published monthly issues  and Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases published the least issues with four issues per year. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, World Journal of Urology, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and Journal of Pediatric Urology published more articles in 2021 compared to 2019. The most original articles were published by World Journal of Urology . In 20213.2Overall, the total time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019  and a longer time between acceptance and in print publication was seen in 2021 . The time between submission and acceptance did not differ between 2019 and 2021 . Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases  and Prostate  had the shortest time between submission and acceptance in 2019 . In 2021When comparing acceptance and publication times for each journal between 2019 and 2021, time between submission and acceptance was significantly longer for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate, but not for other journals. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations had significantly lower time between submission and acceptance in 2021. Significantly longer time between acceptance and in print publication were observed in 2021 compared to 2019 for World Journal of Urology and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, which was lower in 2021 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Neurourology and Urodynamics, and Prostate.Time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics, whereas time between submission and in print publication was not different for the remainder of journals .3.3In 2021, most studies were retrospective cohort studies  and cross-sectional studies , whereas in 2019 most studies were cross-sectional  and animal/experimental . In 2021, animal/experimental studies accounted for 12.3% (n = 197) of all publications. Acceptance and publication times for 2021 and 2019 by study design are listed in In both 2021 and 2019 the majority of publications were from US institutions, 30.2% and 32.3%, respectively. The median time between submission and in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021), compared to publications from other institutions . US auth4As there is a scarcity of data on studies reporting publication times in urology, we aimed to quantify acceptance and publication times of original articles using a bibliometric analytical approach for the years 2019 and 2021, in order to quantify the effects of Covid-19 on publication and acceptance times. We found that in 2021, in general, time between submission and in print publication was longer compared to 2019 (median 4.4 vs 3.3 months), though interestingly, times from submission and acceptance on average was not different between years (median 3.3 vs 3.3 months). Furthermore, we identified journal-specific differences in acceptance and online and in print publication times. The extended time to in-print publication could be due to the accumulated backlog of articles waiting to be processed by the journal publisher, given the rise in articles in 2021. Contrary to our expectations, not all journals had prolonged time between submission and acceptance during the Covid-19 period, as no differences were seen for World Journal of Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology, and Neurourology and Urodynamics, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations even had a shorter time between submission and acceptance in 2021 compared to 2019. These differences were also observed for time between acceptance and in print publication, and time between submission and in print publication, as most journals had either longer or shorter time between acceptance and in print publication, and time between submission and in print publication between years, instead of similar time between acceptance and in print publication, and time between submission and in print publication between 2019 and 2021. Overall, more articles were published in 2021 compared to 2019, although only four of the seven included journals published more original articles in 2021. This could also be partly influenced by the increase in publications over time. It was apparent that fewer original experimental and animal studies were published in 2021, despite the overall number of original articles being higher in 2021. This decrease in animal and experimental studies could be attributed to the worldwide lockdowns of research centers and universities during the Covid-19 pandemic to reduce the spread of infections , though We studied the acceptance and publication times in relation to various study specific factors such as study design and the country of the corresponding author, though we could not quantify other “hidden” contributors affecting acceptance and publication times, which was largely outside the scope of this study. A recent systematic review encompassing more than 30 studies identified that publication times in the literature are substantially different, ranging from one month to almost two years. This imbalance was also observed for acceptance times, as these averages ranged from 1.64 months to nine months .Various factors can be attributed to publication and acceptance times. Authors are responsible for revising their manuscript based on the reviewer's comments. Furthermore, journal selection should be based on the fit and merit of the paper, instead of the journal impact factor, to limit future resubmissions in the case of a rejection .Though, acceptance times are predominantly dependent on journal factors, editorial handling times, more specifically for finding suitable peer reviewers, assessing reviewer comments, and if applicable, editorial board manuscript discussions . High quTime to acceptance of an article may be affected by the time it takes for reviewers to start on the review. Reviewers are usually given four weeks to complete a peer review, though it can be challenging to allocate time to review within their existing busy schedule, next to their own research duties, or patient care.Authors are more likely to engage in peer review if the topic aligns with their own research. The most common reason for declining reviews according to surveyed authors was a lack of time . Time spThe limitations of our study warrant discussion. First, our results may have been affected by the number of original articles each journal publishes yearly and selection bias could be present given that not all journals had acceptance times available. Second, peer review times are affected by various factors related to editor handling times, as well as authors resubmission , which w5In this first bibliometric study in the field of urology, we found substantial differences in acceptance and publication times for general and field-specific urology journals. Time from submission to in print publication was longer in 2021 with 4.5 months compared to 3.3 months in 2019, with some variation among journals. Acceptance times were on average 3.3 months and were not different between 2019 and 2021.Netanja I Harlianto; Zaneta N Harlianto: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Data will be made available on request.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


Endocrine Connections, it is useful to reflect on the developments in the journal and in scholarly publishing in general over recent years. I am naturally happy that Endocrine Connections has maintained its place as one of the leading fully open-access endocrine journals covering a broad range of clinical and basic endocrine science whilst at the same time supporting its two parent societies – the Society for Endocrinology and the European Society of Endocrinology. Article download metrics now match those of the leading specialist endocrine journals, whilst we maintain some of the lowest article publication charges in the field. These achievements are supported by a highly engaged and dedicated board of senior editors drawn from endocrinologists across the globe and I am greatly indebted to them for their support, advice and hard work.As I come to the end of my term as editor-in-chief of Journal of Endocrinology which I took on 15 years ago. It is interesting to observe how the challenges in endocrine publishing have changed over this time. At that time a major concern was in detecting and dealing with fraudulent data and in distinguishing inadvertent from intentional plagiarism. Although these problems have not gone away, I believe them to be less prevalent – with one major exception. That exception has been the rise of the papermill. We, and others, have written about this previously  as exemplified by applications such as ChatGPT. Clearly, AI can be of great assistance in supporting the quality and competence of scientific reports, and my view is that this is acceptable in scientific publication – although authors should be obliged to declare the use of this technology in their paper. This area will undoubtedly develop over the coming years.The greatest challenge that faces scientific publication today though is peer review. Good-quality review is fundamental to scientific advancement, but if we consider the numbers one has to question whether this is sustainable in its current form. In 2022, for example, there were just under 21,000 papers published in the Diabetes and Endocrinology category of the Science Citation Index. If each of these had two peer reviews, with each requiring perhaps 1.5 h of individual time (including revisions), around 30 years of academic time would be required just to cope with the published output in 2022. Of course, many of these papers will be reviewed by two or more journals before being accepted, and many will never be published, so perhaps between 70 and 100 years of expert academic time is a more realistic estimate. This would roughly equate to a cost of around 10 million euro/US dollars/GB pounds per year to peer review in Diabetes and Endocrinology alone. Currently, this service is provided at no cost. I find it hard to imagine that academic or health-care provider employers will continue to sustain this situation when the financial pressures on their organisations are ever-mounting, and there is certainly evidence now of universities discouraging academics from providing this function. Arguments that, as scientists, we have a moral obligation to conduct peer review, or that it is undoubtedly beneficial to the reviewer’s practical and intellectual development, have little traction when such financial restraints come into play.Endocrine Connections we have developed a dedicated and trained Reviewer Editorial Board who often provide vital assistance in reviews, but this cannot be a long-term solution.In keeping with this, this journal is undoubtedly not alone in finding it increasingly hard to recruit good-quality reviewers in a timely fashion, and, in my view this is the greatest challenge for the future of scholarly publication. In the case of et al. , but thIf AI is not the solution, it seems to me that publishers will have to pay reviewers – with these costs obviously being passed on to authors at the time of manuscript submission. Payment of an honorarium to peer reviewers is already accepted in the review of research funding, and it seems to me inevitable that this will come to scholarly publishing soon. Whether this will have an inhibitory effect on the quantities of articles submitted and any tendency to submit to higher impact journals in the first instance remains to be seen – but this may not be a bad thing.So, it is with great sadness that I step down as editor-in-chief, knowing that the journal will remain in the very competent hands of Professor Faisal Ahmed who will take over from me and who will have to address some of these interesting challenges in the coming years. I wish him and the journal every success.The author declares that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of this editorial.This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.


Dear Editor,,Letters to the Editor in dementia journals such as Dementia & Neuropsychologia.Three major obstacles for dementia researchers in Latin America have been identified: funding constraints, language barriers, and article processing charges (APCs)Letters can overcome all three aforementioned barriers . They are short-format articles typically between 250 and 750 words in response to recent publications, relevant topics, or research letters showcasing empirical research. Letters are generally free to publish; many fully open-access journals do not levy APCs for authors of letters, but always check submission guidelines for suitability and APCs before sending to any journal. In such cases, it costs little time and no money to write and publish a letter. Due to its brevity, a letter is a reasonable first publication for trainee researchers whose first language is not EnglishDementia & Neuropsychologia provides examples of recent letters showcasing empirical workThus, the letter is a tool to help LMIC ECRs gain visibility in dementia research while awaiting necessary structural changes for academic publication. Suggestions for writing a good letter can be found elsewhere


We believe it is important to clarify that we are closely involved with journal publications of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), as either Editors‐in‐Chief or Chair of the ACR's Committee on Journal Publications. Our involvement with the ACR journals comes with inherent conflicts of interest with the issue discussed. However, our involvement also positions us to anticipate what we foresee as potential unintended negative effects on academic publishing of the policy discussed herein. The dire consequences of this policy, if it takes effect without addressing the issues described below, necessitate expressing our opinion in a timely manner. Therefore, we provide our opinion without seeking approval of the Board of Directors of the ACR. The ACR continues to monitor and engage with stakeholders and policymakers around this policy change.Scientific discoveries are meaningless if not disseminated. Indeed, for new knowledge to have impact on how we understand or treat a disease, 3 components are paramount: scientific rigor, reproducibility, and timely dissemination.In 2013, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) recommended that articles based on research using public funds must be deposited into the public domain upon journal acceptance. The policy allowed for up to a 12‐month embargo before articles are made publicly available  $3,000 to $10,000, depending on the journal. Open Access comes in several forms, including “Hybrid” and "Gold” Open Access. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) journals On August 25, 2022, the OSTP laid out an updated policy set to be in place by the end of December 2025, requiring immediate public access to articles generated from federally funded research. This policy would eliminate the allowable 12‐month embargo period. The OSTP mandate requires federal agencies to come up with plans to implement this new policy .There are clear advantages to this new OSTP policy. New knowledge described in scientific manuscripts will be made freely available at the time of publication, providing researchers and scientists immediate access to published work in their fields, even without a subscription. This allows replication efforts and application of new medical knowledge in research and clinical practice at a faster pace. However, we believe that this new OSTP policy requires additional scrutiny, as it might not quite achieve the intended goals. Depending on how federal agencies apply the OSTP policy, we worry about the potential for unintended harmful effects.The economic reality is that publishers will have to recoup their expenses  to survive, as in any business. If a 12‐month embargo is removed and published articles made immediately available, journal subscription revenue will almost certainly dwindle, and publishers will be forced to move toward a Gold Open Access model. Publishing an article in an ACR journal with immediate Open Access is currently associated with a publication fee ranging from (USD) $3,080 to $4,940, which the authors are expected to pay. Thus, the updated OSTP policy could potentially push the financial burden of making publications immediately available to the public onto the authors. The policy, in its current form, does not suggest or create resources for these additional publication fees, and the NIH has not clarified whether they will pay these fees. In a practical sense, authors will be forced to use research budgets to fund this new mandate.The OSTP policy has the potential to increase inequity in science. Scientists will be forced into a pay‐to‐publish model. For some researchers with substantial funds, this will be manageable; however, many researchers will find these fees prohibitive. When funds are not available, publishing completed work might be delayed, hindering the dissemination of new knowledge. This potential outcome is exactly the opposite of the desired OSTP policy goal. Moreover, junior scientists, who often have limited funds, will be impacted more than established senior scientists. Researchers from countries with more limited resources will not have a chance to publish in prestigious journals that were forced by the new policy to switch from a subscription to a Gold Open Access model.From the perspective of the publisher, an expanded pay‐to‐publish model will only be sustainable by increasing the volume of accepted manuscripts. This will likely negatively impact rigor and reproducibility in scientific publications, and further burden an already shrinking reviewer pool. We are already seeing a plethora of predatory journals, and the new policy will accelerate the move to low‐quality scientific publications; this is, again, exactly the opposite of the intended OSTP policy goal.Publications from the ACR and other medical and scientific societies provide an important platform to publish the most significant advances in specific medical and scientific fields. Historically, some of the most impactful and paradigm‐shifting work has been published in society journals, and external scientific peer review is a key component. Encouraging a pay‐to‐publish model puts society journals  at substantial financial risk.We strongly support public and immediate access to medical and scientific advances. However, we do not believe the new mandate released by OSTP addresses the likely negative impacts we foresee. We urge a more careful examination of the updated policy, a more extended time to hear concerns from medical societies and the public, and consideration of alternatives that can increase access to scientific publications while maintaining quality.All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be published.


Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship . Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions. The fundamental principle of science is that evidence—not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence, or social prestige—should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: Challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs, and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship . In libeBecause scientific censorship is difficult to detect and measure, it is rarely empirically studied. Here, we discuss historical and modern evidence regarding the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship. Our analysis suggests that censorship is often impelled by prosocial concerns –6 and byHistorical surveys of science often contrast a superstitious and illiberal past with enlightened modernity . GalileoOne might hypothesize that scientific censorship is rarer today than in the past, when science was less influential. However, the ascendancy of science does not guarantee that censorship has become a relic; one could predict the opposite. Higher stakes may create stronger incentives for censorship, especially when findings are perceived by some as potentially harmful .We define scientific censorship as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality. Censorship is distinct from discrimination, if not always clearly so. Censorship targets particular ideas , whereas discrimination targets particular people (regardless of their merit). Academics have long discriminated against various types of people , a problem that has been explored by numerous scholars –24. MajoHard censorship occurs when people exercise power to prevent idea dissemination. Governments and religious institutions have long censored science . However27Worldwide, scientists have faced government suppression ranging from threats of withheld funding to job loss, prison, and even execution , althougA second class of censors includes institutions: universities, journals, and professional societies. Individuals backed by institutional power may censor unilaterally. Deans and department heads can withhold resources or denounce scholars who forward controversial claims. Tenure makes it difficult to fire professors but offers little protection from other punishments, and academics are increasingly nontenure track . ProfessA third class exerts influence informally. Faculty members can ostracize and defame peers, pressuring them into self-censorship. Ostracism and reputational damage may seem trivial compared to historical forms of censorship, but humans value and depend on positive reputations , and peoThese three types of censors encourage scientists to self-censor their own controversial research –46. SelfContemporary scientific censorship is typically the soft variety, which can be difficult to distinguish from legitimate scientific rejection. Science advances through robust criticism and rejection of ideas that have been scrutinized and contradicted by evidence . Papers Censorious reviewers may often be unaware when extrascientific concerns affect their scientific evaluations , and eveThe inherent ambiguities in peer review can also lead scholars whose work warrants rejection to believe erroneously that their work has been censored. Several scientists recently reported that they were censored for challenging mainstream views surrounding COVID-19 . WithoutSociety of Experimental Social Psychology members revealed that perceived undesirability of an empirical finding corresponded with disbelief in that finding  widespread public availability of scholarship coupled with expanding definitions of harm  has coinDespite the challenges of detecting censorship, recent attempts to quantify the issue have concluded that censorship motivated by harm concerns is common. Hundreds of scholars have been sanctioned for expressing controversial ideas, and the rate of sanctions has increased substantially over the past 10 y . RetractSurveys of US, UK, and Canadian academics have documented support for censorship . From 9 A recent national survey of US faculty at four-year colleges and universities found the following: 1) 4 to 11% had been disciplined or threatened with discipline for teaching or research; 2) 6 to 36% supported soft punishment  for peers who make controversial claims, with higher support among younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty; 3) 34% had been pressured by peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25% reported being “very” or “extremely” likely to self-censor in academic publications; and 5) 91% reported being at least somewhat likely to self-censor in publications, meetings, presentations, or on social media .A majority of eminent social psychologists reported that if science discovered a major genetic contribution to sex differences, widespread reporting of this finding would be bad . In a mo104Research on scientific censorship has often been undertaken by scientists working for nonprofits rather than by scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has tracked 486 cases of scholars targeted specifically for their pedagogy or scholarship  i.e., e. The topIn a 2023 survey of academics in New Zealand, 53% reported that they were not free to state controversial or unpopular opinions, 48% reported that they were not free to raise differing perspectives or argue against the consensus among their colleagues, and 26% reported that they were not free to engage in the research of their choice . All theNature Communications released an editorial promising increased attention to potential harms  to publicize their findings and claims of censorship. If the public routinely finds quality scholarship on blogs, social media, and online magazines by scientists who claim to have been censored, a redistribution of authority from established scientific outlets to newer, popular ones seems likely. Given the many modes of dissemination and public availability of data, proscribing certain research areas for credentialed scientists may give extremists a monopoly over sensitive research . ScientiScientific censorship appears to be increasing . PotentiMany science journals now require high levels of transparency and accountability from their authors. Journals should be held to these same standards.Peer review was designed to be anonymous and confidential to protect reviewers from external pressure. Confidentiality has its costs, however, including the potential to eliminate accountability and increase bias. One way to restore accountability to peer review is to request scientific journals make the review and decision-making process as open as possible. Reviews and editorial decision letters could be provided in online repositories available to all scholars (with reviewer and editor names redacted if appropriate). In addition to increasing oversight and accountability, such transparency would allow analyses of large numbers of editorial decisions that could identify potential nonscientific concerns and double standards in decision-making that mask censorship.Nature Communications, Royal Society Open Science, The EMBO Journal, PeerJ, and Collabra: Psychology) and scope-matched journals that decline peer review transparency.This approach would allow for comparisons between journals with different censorship proclivities on scientific productivity metrics, such as impact factors, replicability, and contributions to successful interventions and technologies. Scholars could make longitudinal comparisons between pioneering journals with open review . Some authors may decline, but others—especially those who believe their work was treated unfairly—may accept. Although imperfect, such a policy would increase accountability for reviewers and editors and facilitate the study of both scientific decision-making and censorship.Because the goal of censorship is to prevent publication, reviews for rejected articles (and desk rejection letters) could be especially useful. To our knowledge, only Professional societies could make available the submissions, reviews, and acceptance/rejection decisions for their conferences (perhaps with identities redacted). Because conferences attract many submissions, this policy could rapidly provide scholars with large datasets to test for biases in acceptance and rejection decisions. To enhance accuracy and completeness, willingness to include one’s submission and the resultant outcome in a publicly available dataset could be a prerequisite for conference submissions. Currently, these information-rich datasets are lost year after year.Just as scholars have long conducted audit studies of organizations for biases and discrimination , scholarScholars could also conduct large-scale surveys of scientists to evaluate journals for perceived procedural fairness. Some journals  already survey submitters on relevant questions, such as submitters’ satisfaction with the reasons provided for rejection, but to our knowledge, no journals make these data publicly available. Allowing submitters to evaluate reviewers, editors, and journals and sharing these data publicly would 1) enable empirical analysis of perceived procedural unfairness and censorship, 2) provide submitters some power to push back against unfairness, 3) increase accountability among decision-makers, and 4) allow submitters to make better decisions about where to submit their future manuscripts.Transparent peer review and academic audits would also help identify a related problem: lax standards for desirable findings. Just as scholars hold unpalatable findings to higher standards as a mode of suppression, so too they hold weaker standards for socially desirable  or seemiAudits and evaluations of academic journals would help facilitate competition among science journals. Currently, journal reputations rest largely on impact factors , but this likely perpetuates a Matthew Effect , in whicAll serious calls for and considerations of retractions of published scientific papers could be documented by each outlet in a dataset shared with scholars. Scholars could code the scientific concerns raised , as well as any nonscientific concerns , in which concerns were deemed legitimate by the journal, and which contributed to a retraction decision. Such data would allow scholars to detect hidden censorship via inconsistencies in retraction for articles with similar flaws in the same journals and to test whether nonscientific concerns  predict the use of double standards. These data might also illuminate whether and how editors disguise nonscientific concerns as scientific ones in their retraction explanations. Scholars could also code for whether alleged harms have any empirical basis or merely reflect untested assumptions.Although concerns about potential future harms are a common justification for scientific censorship, few studies have examined the veracity of harm concerns. How likely, extensive, and imminent is the harm? Do experts agree on the likelihood and range of magnitudes? Do scholars from different identity or ideological groups hold different harm estimates? Some evidence suggests that harmful outcomes of research are systematically overestimated and helpful outcomes systematically underestimated . To testScholars should empirically test the costs and benefits of censorship against the costs and benefits of alternatives. They could compare the consequences of retracting an inflammatory paper to 1) publishing commentaries and replies, 2) publishing opinion pieces about the possible applications and implications of the findings, or 3) simply allowing it to remain published and letting science carry on. Which approach inspires more and better research? Which approach is more likely to undermine the reputation of science? Which approach minimizes harm and maximizes benefits? Given ongoing controversies surrounding retraction norms, an adversarial collaboration (including both proponents and opponents of harm-based retractions) might be the most productive and persuasive approach to these research questions , 130.Analysis of purported harms should be a subject of investigation within all scientific disciplines that emphasize harm risks in their norms and policies regarding acceptable scholarship. Such analyses are practically nonexistent in the behavioral sciences, where harm concerns currently influence policy .We have more questions than we have answers. Although many members of our research team are concerned about growing censoriousness in science, there is great diversity of opinion among us about whether and where scholars should “draw the line” on inquiry. We all agree, however, that the scientific community would be better situated to resolve these debates, if—instead of arguing in circles based on conflicting intuitions—we spent our time collecting relevant data. It is possible that there are some instances in which censoring science promotes the greater good, but we cannot know that until we have better science on scientific censorship.


Aerobiology covers both the ecological study of bioaerosols and the subsequent interaction in the natural and built environment but also the ultimate disposition in biological systems [It is simultaneously professionally humbling and an absolute pleasure to be associated with the launch of a new open access journal, with added emphasis in a scientific field as rich and diverse as aerobiology. The field of aerobiology encompasses the living microbiologically diverse world in our collective atmosphere, spanning to both the ecological phenomena and the anthropomorphic effects of a shared biology in the air. The conception of the Journal is intended to be unique amongst peer publications—the scope of  systems , with emThere is a strong argument to be made for an aerobiology Journal whose scope spans both ecological and human health. The microbiological diversity in what is transported in our collective atmosphere drives many processes in the ecology of the planet and how our ever-changing environment impacts human health. Identification and characterization of the changes associated with the airborne transport of bioaerosols provide touchstone data on the effects of climate change on the planetary environment , agriculAerobiology.The COVID-19 pandemic provides an idealized exemplar of how rapid dissemination of scientific information in specific areas of inquiry was needed in critical decision-making and ultimately adding and expanding academic knowledge of the subject matter. In the case of the world emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the recognition that the virus was indeed airborne was built upon data methods and critical thinking that decidedly fell within the field of aerobiology. It was only after the understanding that the emergent virus remains replication competent in aerosol suspensions that longer distance transmission was possible , galvaniAerobiology (ISSN 2813-5075) [Aerobiology, the journal will provide an essential venue for the healthy exchange of prevailing theory and associated discourse in this much understudied subject matter area. Aerobiology fills a void in current publications as the Journals scope spans both the life and health sciences, whereas other aerobiology-centric journals mainly cover life sciences. Those of us engaged in the curation of aerobiology data should care about the growth and vitality of this publication and ensure its success by contributing our work without delay. An exceptional group comprises the growing editorial board of Aerobiology, whose deep expertise spans numerous applied subjects in this exciting field of study. There is palpable excitement at the prospect of submission and review of submissions from a diverse group of engaged contributors throughout the scientific world community. I would like to thank everyone for their continued interest in the field of aerobiology, and I am looking forward to working towards making Aerobiology one of the marquee open access publications in the sciences.The Journal 13-5075)  holds gr


Dear editors,The publishing industry has always been a business, but in recent years, it has witnessed an increasing materialistic trend. This is evident in the way that many publishers are now charging authors with Article Processing Charges (APCs) to publish their work in open access journals that have grown exponentially, leading to both positive and negative impacts on the academic publishing industry.1 where some journals may prioritise quantity over quality, leading to a decline in the overall standard of published manuscripts3. The shift of publishing costs onto the authors, rather than the readers, goes against traditional principles of publishing and business4, creating financial burdens, particularly for authors in less affluent regions. In the print age, the burden of accessibility was on readers, while in the open access era, it has shifted into an affordability burden on authors.On the positive side, open access publishing helps make scientific knowledge more accessible, allowing a wider audience to benefit from it by eliminating paywalls and enabling readers to access scholarly articles without restrictions. However, the rise of author-paid open access journals has turned scientific publishing into a profit-driven businessThe claim of free access that open access publishers often boast can lead to misunderstandings among readers, who may assume that the publication process is cost-free, and publishers are generously providing them with such a service. This misconception undermines the understanding of the financial complexities involved in academic publishing and may contribute to a lack of appreciation for the efforts and resources invested by authors.Another significant challenge in the open access landscape is the emergence of so-called “predatory publishers”. The dichotomy between "predatory publishers" and “non-predatory” counterparts has been a subject of controversial debates over the past years, often overlooking the root causes of the problem. When authors are under permanent pressure to publish more, and when publishers request them to pay high publishing fees, it is not surprising that so-called “predatory publishing” appears to take advantage of the situation with deceptive practices. Predatory publishing cannot be addressed properly without tackling the root causes of the issue, namely the pressure on authors and the associated APCs required for publication.Initiatives like Plan S in Europe and similar efforts elsewhere, while aiming to promote open access, have incentivised publishers to increase the number of open access journals and establish exclusive open access agreements with institutions, often involving high open access fees. While some journals and publishers claim to waive publishing charges, the reality often reveals a different picture, and waivers are rarely granted. The rubbish 'publish or perish' mantra in the print age is now transforming into a harsher mantra in the open access era that what we can call “pay or go away”, where authors who cannot afford APCs can simply be excluded from the publishing realm.To address these issues, reforms are necessary to ensure inclusiveness, affordability, and equity, particularly by supporting community-led and non-profit open access initiatives that prioritise accessibility and quality over profit. Finding a good balance between accessibility, affordability, and quality is crucial. The democratisation of knowledge should prioritise empowering a publishing environment where the pursuit of knowledge takes precedence over profit-driven motives. Access to scientific knowledge should be free for authors and readers.


Instructions to Authors. We assessed the extent to which 100 journals in neuroscience and physiology required authors to report methods and results in a rigorous and transparent way. For each journal, Instructions to Authors and any referenced reporting guideline or checklist were downloaded from journal websites. Twenty-two questions were developed to assess how journal Instructions to Authors address fundamental aspects of rigor and transparency in five key reporting areas. Journal Instructions to Authors and all referenced external guidelines and checklists were audited against these 22 questions. Of the full sample of 100 Instructions to Authors, 34 did not reference any external reporting guideline or checklist. Reporting whether clinical trial protocols were pre-registered was required by 49 journals and encouraged by 7 others. Making data publicly available was encouraged by 64 journals; making  code publicly available was encouraged by ∼30 of the journals. Other responsible reporting practices were mentioned by less than 20 of the journals. Journals can improve the quality of research reports by mandating, or at least encouraging, the responsible reporting practices highlighted here.Journals can substantially influence the quality of research reports by including responsible reporting practices in their  To gain knowledge, truthful and accurate reporting of scientific discovery is needed. At a minimum, research should be designed and conducted rigorously, and reported with sufficient detail so that findings can be independently verified. Transparent reporting of methods and results goes a long way towards scientific trustworthiness.Unfortunately, the transparency and quality of research reporting are often sub-standard. For example, despite widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, it is adhered to by only 65% of randomised controlled trials published in rehabilitation journals . In linewww.equator-network.org), an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health and medical research, hosts and disseminates reporting guidelines for many common study designs. Well-known reporting guidelines include CONSORT [One strategy to improve the transparency and quality of research reports has been to introduce reporting guidelines and checklists. Developed by consensus working groups, these guidelines provide a minimum list of criteria that ensures scientific papers are rigorously and transparently reported. The EQUATOR Network , based on their experience, to reflect the breadth of research and readership in these fields (n = 158). Of these, titles selected by at least 2 investigators were shortlisted (n = 39), and an additional 61 journal titles were randomly sampled.Instructions to Authors over a 2-week period (22 Apr to 7 May 2021). Either the text of the Instructions to Authors was copied to a Microsoft Word file, or the PDF of the Instructions to Authors was retrieved. All referenced reporting guidelines or checklists were noted for all 100 journals. Examples of referenced reporting guidelines that were downloaded by investigators included those indexed on the EQUATOR Network (www.equator-network.org), checklists endorsed by professional associations or required by editorial policy, and recommendations from editorial series. However, external reporting guidelines and checklists were not retrieved if Instructions to Authors did not specifically encourage or require their use. For each journal, document retrieval was checked by a second investigator to ensure completeness.Journal impact factors and the number of citable items for these 100 journal titles were obtained. Next, journal titles were allocated to each of the 6 investigators. Investigators downloaded the Instructions to Authors addressed responsible reporting practices. The questions were developed using the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) guidelines [Twenty-two questions and scoring criteria were developed to assess how strongly journal idelines  and quesidelines –6. They Instructions to Authors was used to assess agreement between investigators and refine the wording of the questions. The text of journal Instructions to Authors was assessed to determine if questions were satisfied using these scores: Not mentioned, Encouraged, Required.The wording of the questions is shown in Not mentioned if the specific reporting practice was not encouraged or required in the Instructions to Authors. Questions were scored as Encouraged if Instructions to Authors used words such as ‘encourage’, ‘recommend’, ‘suggest’, and ‘advise’. Questions were scored as Required if Instructions to Authors used words such as ‘require’, ‘mandate’, ‘should’, and ‘must’. Scores that differed between investigators were discussed to achieve agreement and consistency. The wording of the questions was refined to improve consistency between investigators.Questions were scored as Instructions to Authors to audit. If they encountered a statement that was unclear, or they were unsure how to score it (i.e. encourage or require), the team discussed the issue and a consensus decision was reached. Instructions to Authors were also assessed for inconsistencies: for example, if they directed authors to report results as mean (SD), but included an example of a figure that reports mean (SE).Each investigator was randomly allocated 15 to 20 Instructions to Authors direct authors to comply with external reporting guidelines and checklists, some of which partially address our 22 questions. This directive is important as it is a second mechanism, in addition to directives in journal Instructions to Authors, that can help improve reporting practices. Therefore, we also audited the 36 external reporting guidelines and checklists referenced by journal Instructions to Authors. Some external reporting guidelines were available in a main form, and in various extensions. For example, the PRISMA guideline that is used to report systematic reviews has an extension, the PRISMA-P guideline, that is used to report protocols of systematic reviews. To simplify this part of the audit, only the main form of guidelines were audited. Given that reporting guidelines (and some checklists) are not necessarily applicable to all papers published in a given journal, their results are reported separately.Some Instructions to Authors, as well as the subset that did not reference any external guidelines or checklists. We also report which external guidelines and checklists were referenced by individual journal Instructions to Authors, and how each external guideline and checklist scored when audited against the 22 questions.Results were tallied for each of the 22 audit questions and reported for the full sample of https://osf.io/wtkzy/). Raw data, computer analysis code and results are available from the project repository .Descriptive data are reported. All data processing and analysis were performed using Python (v3.9). The study protocol was pre-registered on the Open Science Foundation  impact factor was 3.04 (2.21 to 4.57), and the number of citable items was 7,157 . Of the 100 Instructions to Authors, 34 did not reference any external reporting guideline or checklist.The full sample consisted of 100 Not mentioned, Encouraged and Required are presented stratified by whether journal Instructions to Authors did or did not reference external guidelines and checklists. The data used to generate this figure are provided separately . This practice was addressed much more widely than the second most commonly addressed practice to report all statistical tests performed .When reporting research methods, the most commonly addressed reporting practice in Few practices to report statistical methods were commonly addressed. The least commonly addressed practice was to report how any missing data were treated in the analyses (encouraged: 2/100). The most commonly addressed practice was to report, for frequentist analysis, the alpha threshold that defines statistical significance .Also, few practices to report results in text and figures were commonly addressed. The least commonly addressed practice was to report, for Bayesian analysis, the posterior distribution with a measure of central tendency and a credibility interval in text . The most commonly addressed practices were to report exact P values in text , and to define all plotted measures that summarise data variability or estimates of effect size in figures .Reporting practices to encourage transparent reporting were addressed the most widely. The most commonly addressed practice was to make (de-identified) data used in the statistical analysis publicly available . However, practices to make data processing code or spreadsheets publicly available , and to make statistical analysis code or spreadsheets publicly available , in comparison to practices in other sections, were also widely addressed.Instructions to Authors are listed in The 36 external guidelines and checklists referenced by the journal Instructions to Authors do not adequately address these practices, with the exception that approximately half of the journals asked authors to make data and code publicly available, and to indicate whether clinical trial protocols were registered.We examined whether journals in neuroscience and physiology require, or at the very least encourage, authors to adopt responsible reporting practices. In particular, we assessed fundamental aspects of scientific reporting that are not typically addressed by reporting guidelines and checklists. We found that most journal Instructions to Authors in emergency medicine [Our findings are broadly consistent with findings from other audits of journal medicine , nutritimedicine , and othmedicine . ExternaInstructions to Authors.Why are responsible research practices not implemented systematically or more widely by journals? It is likely that editors are aware of these fundamental aspects of rigorous and transparent reporting. However, they may incorrectly assume that researchers are also aware of them, and that authors  are responsible for implementing them. Editors may also be reluctant to implement responsible reporting practices, just as they are reluctant to address scientific misconduct or rectify publication errors –25. AlsoInstructions to Authors are administered by a succession of editors, each adding more and more instructions, often through circuitous hyperlinks and nested hyperlinks. Without proper organisation, Instructions to Authors can become so onerous and confusing that authors have trouble locating and extracting key information, and therefore are unable to comply with requirements. This becomes a barrier for authors to implement responsible reporting practices. Thankfully, there are examples of journals that have managed to find a balance. For example, the Instructions to Authors for the journal Spinal Cord, which are available as a simple downloadable PDF, are streamlined, well organised, and address key responsible reporting practices.In other cases, editors may be overly enthusiastic and inadvertently overwhelm authors with too many instructions. This may occur when Even if responsible reporting practices are encouraged by journals, researchers may be unwilling to fundamentally change. Our previous audit showed that editorial recommendations alone are not sufficient for reform . In anotInstructions to Authors address responsible reporting practices would not be reflected in our findings. In addition, our findings are based on the text in journal Instructions to Authors and reporting guidelines and checklists downloaded over a 2-week period in early 2021. If journals had made improvements to their Instructions to Authors to address responsible reporting practices after this date, these changes would not be reflected in our findings.Our study is not without limitations. We purposefully sampled journal titles to identify key journals in physiology and neuroscience. This was done based on the experience and familiarity of senior investigators in these fields (∼85 years of combined experience), and random sampling of journal titles with impact factors of at least 1.00. However, we may have missed influential journals, and the extent to which their status quo.Even so, what can be done to improve responsible reporting practices? One strategy would be to incorporate additional items into existing guidelines and checklists. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to gain broad support. Another strategy would be to devise a new reporting guideline. However, to improve the quality of scientific reporting, this guideline would need to be adopted and enforced broadly. Given the large number of guidelines already in existence, and the fact that relevant guidelines are not necessarily used or adhered to , 15–18, Another suggestion would be for editors to shortlist a set of key reporting practices that are uncontroversial and easy to implement  and mandate these practices on manuscript submission. Then, on first submission, manuscripts could be assessed by junior editors for compliance with these practices.Why junior editors? Reviewers’ time is precious and in high demand. Moreover, they review papers from different journals, each with different reporting requirements. Thus, reviewers are unlikely to accept the responsibility of ensuring authors comply with journal reporting requirements. Editors are in a better position to assess and mandate journal-specific reporting requirements, and there is evidence that editorial interventions can, in some cases, lead to positive changes in reporting practices , 27. HowInstructions to Authors across these journals. Thus, editors may not be able to influence the content of the Instructions to Authors. In these circumstances, editors and publishers could work to improve reporting practices by educating readers on the importance of these fundamental aspects of scientific reporting, by using editorials or special interest series to generate discussion.It is important to acknowledge that many journals are owned by large publishing companies that may implement a standardised set of More broadly, editors who are part of a journal collaborative could work together to improve reporting practices. For example, editors of 28 major rehabilitation and disability journals joined forces to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines . NeverthJournals can substantially influence the quality of research reports by preventing poor reporting practices. A simple approach to achieve this would be for journals to mandate a set of key reporting practices that are most easily addressed. In time, this will hopefully translate to better reporting standards in neuroscience and physiology.S1 File(TXT)Click here for additional data file.S1 Table(CSV)Click here for additional data file.S2 Table(XLSX)Click here for additional data file.