Fifteen years ago, most publications were paper-based, accessible only by subscription - be it a personal or a library subscription. By the late 1990s, this 'traditional' mode of access to scientific literature was about to change dramatically, as the result of a combination of events: the improvement of personal computer hardware (with computers becoming faster and cheaper every year), public access to internet and the world-wide web, online publishing and, most of all, the will of the scientific community to make research more easily available. This has led to the development of Open Access (OA). This revolution in publishing has given developing countries an opportunity to have access to the latest scientific literature, by-passing the need for libraries, which they could not afford.HINARI Initiative, a partnership between the World Health Organization and a number of publishers. It was a step in the right direction, but was far from providing the desired unlimited access.Once 'traditional' publishers had started to produce their journals in an online format, it became possible to consider making them available free-of-charge or at low-cost to readers outside the industrialized world: this was first achieved in 2000, through the MEDLINE, the most comprehensive index to medical literature, freely available online in the form of PubMed: as a result, the usage of this database increased 100-fold overnight. Since access to research abstracts alone is insufficient, this quickly led to the recognition of the need for an open online repository of full articles, which was realized as PubMedCentral. Once this was in place, Vitek Tracz, the chairman of a UK-based publishing company, was able to launch BioMed Central in 2000. BioMed Central which is now part of the Springer Group, publishes 206 peer-reviewed Open Access journals, including Malaria Journal, started in 2002, and Parasite & Vectors, started in 2008. The fact that articles in BioMed Central journals are immediately backed-up in the PubMed Central repository provides them with a long-term security other online journals may not provide.In 1997, the U.S. National Library of Medicine made The Open Access concept really gained momentum when funding agencies in many countries, including the Wellcome Trust, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council in the UK, made it a requirement in 2006 for the research they had financed to become freely available in open access, not later than six months after its publication. This has forced many 'traditional' non-OA journals to make articles available in limited open access, after an embargo period of 6-12 months or longer. The alternative to publishing in a journal that provides immediate OA to all of its articles on the publisher's website , is for the author to 'self-archive' in a repository .Public Library of Science (PLoS) in 2001, initially as an organization to advocate Open Access publication, led to the creation of a number of PLoS journals initially aimed firmly at the 'high quality end' of the scientific spectrum. The launch of these new journals, together with the wide range of OA journals started a few years earlier by BioMed Central, has changed the scientific publication scene forever.The creation of the Malaria Journal and PLos One now publish 12.1% and 3.7% of all papers, respectively, while the other journals had kept more or less the same volume of publications over the period . By comparison, in 2002, publication of malaria papers was spread more widely than in 2009, with 30 journals sharing about 25% of the bulk of the publication volume.A PubMed search for publications on 'malaria' in 2009, shows 2,839 papers, but as bibliometric tools are imperfect, 9% of these had only a trivial malaria content and were excluded from further analysis; the same correction factor was arbitrarily applied to publications on malaria between 2002 and 2009, as shown on Figure PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Parasites & Vectors, Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, all in disciplines of interest to the scientific community working on malaria. Furthermore, Hindawi has announced the forthcoming launch of Malaria Research & Treatment, whilst the MalariaWorld Newsletter has announced the project of a MalariaWorld Journal. In terms of improving the dissemination of information to the widest possible audience, this diversity of journals can only be a good thing. It also provides authors with a choice to best fit their needs.The success of the open access movement has led to the launch of many more specialist journals over the past three years, including Why do authors choose to publish in one journal rather than another ? An author's ideal choice would deliver fast publication, in a journal that has a broad coverage and a good exposure to colleagues in their discipline, whilst also conveying 'prestige' (often taken as synonymous with having as high an impact factor as possible), and in a journal that is free-of-charge. No journal does, of course, have all these features, but on the whole, open access journals are doing better than traditional journals on most of these although availability of sufficient funding to cover open access publication fees  remains a concern for many authors. It is notable that the 'big 10' - the journals usually considered to convey the most 'prestige' . On the other hand, it is conceivable that the improved access to papers from 'Northern' journals may actually be a disincentive for the redevelopment of Africa-based journals - this would be a shame.Considering that over 90% of malaria mortality occurs in Africa, it is a sad observation that in the 20 Africa-based medical journals listed in the PubMed search for 2009, a total of only 52 articles was published there , if they request it. In 2009, of the 315 articles published in Malaria Journal, 81 had an African scientist as first author and a further 47 had African scientists as one of the authors.BioMed Central in general, and Malaria Journal over the past nine years can be explained by a combination of factors: having been the first open access journal in tropical medicine, created at the very start of the Open Access movement, having a prestigious and dynamic Editorial Board, making the effort to copy-edit all articles in a traditional fashion, and helping less-experienced authors from the developing world to reshape their manuscript to an acceptable standard. Figure Malaria Journal has now been a leader amongst specialist tropical medicine journals for a few years and the average output this year has reached a paper per day. Quality is not only judged by how often an article is cited, but also by the number of times it is consulted online: in a way, this is how readers show their interest in a paper, and this is recognized on the paper by a 'highly accessed' tag.The exponential growth of Malaria Journal has promoted itself as a journal accepting papers on 'malaria in its broadest sense and publishing exclusively papers on malaria'. It was of interest, therefore, to look at its publication output in 2009, compared to the whole field , as well as to one of the most respected 'traditional' tropical medicine journals, the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , but it also contains Case reports, Methodology papers, Reviews, Opinion and Commentaries. The journal produced a series of supplements, including one on 'The research agenda for global malaria elimination', one on the drug 'Coartem' and one on 'Development of the sterile insect technique for African malaria vectors'; a supplement on 'Natural products for anti-malarial drug development' is in preparation. The journal also offers the possibility of thematic series, which bring together in one section of the journal a number of papers on the same topic; one such series on 'Malaria elimination', guest-edited by M. Tanner, was started early in 2010.Parasite to Prevention', with the abstracts of the presentations and posters presented at the conference to be published in Malaria Journal. This is an appropriate way of marking the coming of age of the journal and be able to give some thoughts for its future.This year, the Malaria Journal and BioMed Central are organizing a three-day Conference on 'th year of Malaria Journal could not have been written without acknowledging the work of so many colleagues who have so generously given of their time to peer-review the manuscripts submitted to the journal: their comments have helped to transforms manuscripts into quality papers, and the journal could not have worked without them.An Editorial to mark to 10List of the 528 journals that have published at least one malaria paper in 2009. Showing three categories: those have published more than 25 papers, those that have published between 6-24 papers, and those who published 5 or less. Journals that are highlighted in yellow are those that are known to be available for 'immediate' Open Access.Click here for file


Ecology and Evolution is the peer-reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of research in all areas of ecology, evolution and conservation science. The journal gives priority to quality research reports, theoretical or empirical, that develop our understanding of organisms and their diversity, interactions between them, and the natural environment.Ecology and Evolution gives prompt and equal consideration to papers reporting theoretical, experimental, applied and descriptive work in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The journal will consider submissions across taxa in areas including but not limited to micro and macro ecological and evolutionary processes, characteristics of and interactions between individuals, populations, communities and the environment, physiological responses to environmental change, population genetics and phylogenetics, relatedness and kin selection, life histories, systematics and taxonomy, conservation genetics, extinction, speciation, adaption, behaviour, biodiversity, species abundance, macroecology, population and ecosystem dynamics, and conservation policy.Ecology and Evolution features original research articles, reviews, editorials, and hypotheses. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.Ecology and Evolution publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from a select group of prestigious journals published by Wiley-Blackwell. Ecology and Evolution is a Wiley Open Access journal, one of a new series of peer-reviewed titles publishing quality research with speed and efficiency. For further information visit the Wiley Open Access website at http://www.wileyopenaccess.comEcology and Evolution are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. All articles accepted from 14 August 2012 are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. All articles accepted before this date were published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. The Creative Commons Attribution License permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and allows the commercial use of published articles.All articles published by Ecology and Evolution is retained by the author(s). Authors grant Wiley a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identifi ed. Further information about open access license and copyright can be found at http://www.wileyopenaccess.com/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright–License.html.Copyright on any research article in a journal published by corporatesales@wiley.comPrint reprints of Wiley Open Access articles can be purchased from The Publisher and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily refl ect those of the Publisher and Editors, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsements by the Publisher and Editors of the products advertised.Wiley Open Access articles posted to repositories or websites are without warranty from Wiley of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fi tness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. To the fullest extent permitted by law Wiley disclaims all liability for any loss or damage arising out of, or in connection with, the use of or inability to use the content.


Brain and Behavior is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal, providing rapid publication of high-quality research across neurology, neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry. The journal will publish quality research reports that enhance understanding of the brain and behavior.Brain and Behavior will give rapid consideration to papers in all areas of clinical and basic research. Molecular, cellular, systems and population-level research in humans and animal models are welcome. The journal will consider empirical and theoretical submissions in areas including but not limited to mechanisms and treatment of all neurological diseases and psychiatric disorders, behavioral and cognitive science, neuronal and glial cell biology, neurosurgery, neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, neuroimmunology, neuropathology, computational neuroscience, functional and structural neuroimaging, neurogenetics and psychiatric genetics, child and adolescent psychiatry, psychiatry of affective and cognitive disorders, epidemiology, emerging technologies and new research methods, translational research, neuropsychology, clinical psychology, and developmental, cognitive, and social psychology.Brain and Behavior features original research articles, reviews, methods papers, editorials, and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.Brain and Behavior publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from a select group of prestigious journals published by Wiley-Blackwell. Brain and Behavior is a Wiley Open Access journal, one of a new series of peer-reviewed titles publishing quality research with speed and efficiency. For further information visit the Wiley Open Access website at http://www.wileyopenaccess.comBrain and Behavior are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. All Brain and Behavior articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.All articles published by Brain and Behavior is retained by the author(s). Authors grant Wiley a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.Copyright on any research article in a journal published by Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. All rights reserved. Requests to reproduce material from this journal content are being handled through the Rightslink® online service.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com)Locate the article you wish to reproduce on Wiley Online Library Read and accept our Terms & Conditions and Download your licensecustomercare@copyright.comFor any technical queries please contact www.wiley.com and select Rights& Permissions.For further information and to view a Rightslink® demo please visit permissionsuk@wiley.comSpecial requests should be addressed to The Publisher and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Publisher and Editors, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsements by the Publisher and Editors of the products advertised.


This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs. Conflict of interest (COI), or competition of interests, often distorts presentation and interpretation of research data in biomedical publications, and its non-disclosure is perceived as a misconduct with serious consequences for trustworthiness of science communication .In 1991, the term COI was introduced in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the National Library of Medicine of the US, and 10 200 entries have been tagged with this term in PubMed as of December 5, 2013. An increasing body of related research and scientific publications, with just one PubMed-indexed item on COI in 1967 and 670 items in 2010, speaks volumes about the growing importance of the subject for the multidisciplinary medical community. However, elaborations on COI across subspecialty areas are uneven and often scarce. For example, PubMed lists only 296 (2.9%) relevant sources in internal medicine, 113 (1.1%) in cardiology, and only 17 (0.2%) in rheumatology.Although no unified definition of COI exists for the medical community, it is widely described as a set of circumstances in which a primary professional interest is excessively influenced by an individual’s secondary interest(s), which come into conflict with ethical duties toward patients, health professionals, and society-at-large ,3.In medicine, primary professional interests relate to the quality of health care, proper management of diseases, well-being of patients, professional service to a discipline and a community, unbiased execution and reporting of scientific research, as well as honest and transparent editorial work. Secondary interests are numerous, complex in origin, and not always easily discernible, even for seasoned experts. These may arise from an individual’s desire to benefit financially from professional actions, to strengthen positions of certain scientific statements, to advance his/her career development, or to favor family, friends, and colleagues from the same city, country, or institution, among others. The resultant conflict may be commercial , intellectual, academic (academic competition), ideological, personal, or regional.BMJ from 1997 to 2001  revealed that the authors’ conclusions were significantly more positive toward pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in trials funded by for-profit organizations than in those without any such conflict (P = 0.014)  had established an explicit policy to deal with the editors’ financial COIs, while 12 editors (37%) did not intend to declare financial conflicts in the future  have still not declared their policies for transparent reporting of COI among the reviewers and editors  articles, which are increasingly published in rheumatology journals. However, like in the field of cardiovascular medicine, policies on COI in rheumatology journals are still imperfect. We reviewed webpages, instructions for authors, and publishers’ policies on COI of 43 Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals, currently listed in the SCImago database, and found that only 7 (16.3%) have adopted comprehensive policies on COI disclosure for authors, reviewers, and editors. All these journals are distinguished by high scientific prestige, high values of the  editors .P < 0.005)  . Similar< 0.005) ,17. As aThe Cochrane reviews often reinforce CPGs and thus become guiding tools for a large number of practicing physicians. Authors of these guidelines may have financial and other relations with the manufacturers of the drugs they recommend, and any such instance, especially when concealed or inexplicitly reported, may jeopardize the validity of the guidelines as intervention tools for health care worldwide . Peer reAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official organ of the Association with impressive bibliometric indicators. Analysis of 27 guidelines, endorsed by EULAR and published from 2000 to 2013, indicates that COI statements are available in only 9 (33.3%) documents, while 18 (66.6%) do not contain detailed disclosures of COIs and author-industry specific relations. However, COI notes in the six most recent EULAR recommendations (2010-2013) contain exhaustive disclosure of pharmaceutical industry-related conflicts. This trend may indicate improved understanding of the importance of COI among authors, reviewers, and handling editors of the CPGs.Authors of most practice guidelines are usually eminent specialists in their field, who are sponsored by one or more pharmaceutical agencies. High-ranking journals are much desirable publication venues for the authors and sponsors who aim to attract large numbers of readers and potential citers to the CPGs. Unfortunately, disclosure of COIs is still not a top priority throughout the development and distribution of the guidelines. Our experience with processing relevant documents, retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE -47, suggIt appears that better awareness of multiple facets of COI and transparent disclosure of its actual and perceived forms by all contributors of science communication may be a comprehensive solution to the existing ethical conundrums in biomedical publications. Though not always adequately perceived and reported by researchers, COI may arise at any experimental and clinical study . As suchA strong foundation for ethical reporting of COI was laid down in 2010 at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, which produced the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity . Among mDeutsches Ärzteblatt, the official organ of the German Medical Association, showed that the percentage of positive COI statements in original and review papers doubled over the initial two years of the implementation .-59.53-59entation .In one of its major policy documents, published in 2009, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommended to report journal reviewers’ and editors’ conflicts related to the authors’ submissions, though no specific form was proposed . FurtherIn conclusion, numerous conflicts of interest may arise at all stages of executing, reporting, and publishing biomedical research. The declaration of all relevant financial and non-financial COIs by authors of research papers is simple and remains the most important step toward the trustworthiness of science communication. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be familiar with the current research reporting guidelines, where information on funding, sources of drug supply, involvement of sponsors in research, and other ethical issues is incorporated in the checklists . A largeStrategies and effective tools for disclosing authors’ COIs are now in place in most journals, adhering to the recommendations of the ICMJE and other associations for editors. Science editors and peer reviewers, and particularly those processing reports on drug trials, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, should carefully evaluate the authors’ reported conflicts and, when required, suggest more explicit disclosures of author-pharmaceutical industry relations in a specially designated section of the papers. The authors’ COI statements may be weighed when publishing decisions are taken although there is no data on how often journal submissions with excessive conflicts are declined. Reviewers and editors themselves may have financial and personal COIs, and it is their ethical duty to disclose any conflict to the publisher and the journal readers. There is, however, no specifically designed form for reviewers and editors, and they are usually asked to report any relevant issue throughout their work, using the online editorial management tools.Joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and science editors can be a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs in biomedical publications.


In order to select the best quality of articles, the review and publication process has to be transparent, methodical and impartial. All stages of this process are explicitly built on ethical principles and informed decisions, most of which are based on the distinctive vision of the editors. The quality of research published in a journal depends in turn on the trust that researchers, authors and readers repose in the editorial policies of the journal. The influence of powerful financial and intellectual interests sometimes comes in the way of these policies. This makes it imperative to have clear guidelines and unambiguous policies in order to ensure the ethical treatment of all aspects of the editorial and publication processes.http://publicationethics.org) acts as a forum for these wide-ranging discussions and their possible redressal. The summaries of all cases and their outcomes are posted on the website and act as a guide for authors and editors, alike.What started out as an informal group of editors concerned at the increasing instances of authors flaunting scientific integrity evolved later into the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 1997. COPE is now a registered British charitable organization and has a number of leading journals and editors as its members. Editors of scientific journals are encouraged to submit issues relating to the integrity of the work submitted for publication and the website (Flowcharts on handling common publication lapses are present in a section of the website. Seventeen different issues pertaining to misconduct are available. They provide solutions to problems such as redundant publication, plagiarism, fabrications of data, authorship problems, undisclosed conflict of interest, complaints against authors and reviewers and various types of ethical indiscretions.The section on guidelines has the code of conduct for its member editors, which encourages them to work for improving the journal by ensuring adherence to quality, freedom of expression, maintenance of integrity and that of adopting a stance of not letting profits come in the way of achieving high intellectual standards. The code also advises the members to meet the needs of the authors and readers and to publish corrections, retractions and apologies, if required.The research section has details of the work carried out at different places in terms of publication misconduct by grants provided by COPE. Projects on detecting plagiarism, author’s awareness about publication ethics have been successfully completed.The Forum is perhaps the most interesting section of the website. It hosts all Annual Reports between 1998 and 2008. These reports provide a summary of individual cases linked to the actual description of problem, the advice by COPE, follow-up by the journal and the resolution. The Cases section contains an indexed version of all cases submitted to COPE. These reports and cases should be essential reading for all aspiring authors and those interested in implementing good publication practices.The Seminar section lists the content from annual seminars organized by COPE. A perusal of the contents reveals a number of interesting cases; the 2010 seminars on plagiarism in the electronic age, cultural differences in plagiarism and screening for plagiarism using a web-based service are remarkable eye-openers.The publication ethics blog allows members to post comments and to engage in discussion on varied relevant topics. The newsletter of COPE called ‘Ethical Editing’ is also available for download. In addition to news and reports of meetings, it has general articles which tend to demystify some of the more daunting aspects of publication ethics.The contents of the website are not for the newbie, there is a distance education course in the offing but its details are not available. The problem of misconduct in scientific publication in the developing countries as a unique identity does not find a place on the website. Indian journal members are primarily those from large publishing houses. Smaller Indian journals have not been represented despite a discounted membership rate.The overall accent of the website is to create awareness about publication ethics and it succeeds in doing so by its content. However, most of the text is uninspiring and only a diehard editor will go through the website in a concerted effort to find solutions. A more pleasing layout with visual appeal and ease of navigation would be more appropriate for such a topical website.


Wider adoption of reporting guidelines by veterinary journals could improve the quality of published veterinary research. The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and views of veterinary Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines, identify the policies of their journals, and determine their information needs. Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals on the contact list for the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) were surveyed in April 2012 using an online questionnaire which contained both closed and open questions.The response rate was 36.8% (68/185). Thirty-six of 68 editors (52.9%) stated they knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire. Editors said they had found out about reporting guidelines primarily through articles in other journals, via the Internet and through their own journal. Twenty of 57 respondents (35.1%) said their journal referred to reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most frequently cited. Forty-four of 68 respondents (68.2%) believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Qualitative analysis of the open questions revealed that lack of knowledge, fear, resistance to change, and difficulty in implementation were perceived as barriers to the adoption of reporting guidelines by journals. Editors suggested that reporting guidelines be promoted through communication and education of the veterinary community, with roles for the IAVE and universities. Many respondents believed a consensus policy on guideline implementation was needed for veterinary journals.Further communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers has the potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future. Reporting guidelines, standards or statements (referred to here as reporting guidelines) can be defined as “statements that provide advice on how to report research methods and findings” . The aimAround 200 reporting guidelines are listed on the website of the EQUATOR Network , which pSeveral authors have demonstrated deficiencies in the reporting of study design features and other methodological information necessary to judge the quality of the evidence in veterinary research, especially in clinical trials -23. For EQUATOR is currently investigating the factors that prevent or facilitate the use of reporting guidelines by medical journals . CorrespThis research received ethical approval from the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science Ethics Committee at The University of Nottingham. As stated in the introductory letter of the online questionnaire , through a combination of direct communication with veterinary editors and information obtained from bibliographic databases and journal websites.st April 2012, and included Editors-in-Chief from 197 journals. For journals with more than one Editor-in-Chief, the editors were asked in both the invitation e-mail and the introductory letter to return a single, joint response for their journal.The IAVE e-mail contact list used for the survey invitation was updated as of 1The questionnaire was made anonymous to encourage full and accurate responses; however respondents had the option to provide identifying information at the end of the questionnaire. The introductory letter explained the purpose of the study and listed the investigators involved.http://www.cvent.com). The text of the questionnaire is shown in Additional file The online questionnaire was developed and hosted using Cvent Web Survey software  was compulsory. Respondents answering “Yes” to this question were asked how and where they had learned about reporting guidelines and which reporting guidelines they were aware of, from a list of options. Respondents answering “No” were directed to Section 2 and the next compulsory question for all respondents, on whether their journal’s instructions to authors mentioned reporting guidelines. Different questions were posed to respondents whose journal already referred to reporting guidelines than to those whose journal did not. At the start of Section 2, a brief definition of reporting guidelines was given to inform any respondents previously unaware of what they were. Respondents were instructed to consult their journal’s editorial team if they lacked the information to answer the questions on their journal’s current and planned implementation of reporting guidelines.The questionnaire was pre-tested by seven researchers from the Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine and then piloted online by three Assistant Editors and a former Editor-in-Chief of veterinary journals, and five veterinary researchers from the University of Nottingham. It was ensured that the logic of the online questionnaire functioned correctly, and any ambiguous or misunderstood questions were re-worded.Editors-in-Chief on the IAVE contact list were e-mailed an invitation to take part in the survey by MC on behalf of the IAVE on 18 April 2012. The invitation included a brief description of the study and a link to the online questionnaire. If an e-mail failure message was received after sending out the initial invitation, the e-mail was resent to the same address two days later. If the e-mail failed a second time, an attempt was made to find an alternative e-mail address by searching the journal’s website, and the invitation was resent if another address was found. Reminders were sent to all recipients after two weeks and on the day before the questionnaire closed. The closing date was 16 May 2012, four weeks after the initial invitation was sent.Identifying details from the optional Section 5 of the questionnaire were removed from each response before analysis, to anonymise the data.Depending on the web browser used and the settings for cookies, the Cvent software used the internet protocol (IP) address to identify where a respondent had partially completed the questionnaire and then returned later. In such cases the answers initially entered were retained, and a single respondent identification number was generated by the software. To check for potential failures in this automatic process, the IP address of each response was also checked manually for duplicates.Data were exported from the Cvent website to an Excel spread sheet  and descriptive analysis was performed. All categorical variables were reported as numbers and percentages. Responses for any open or semi-closed questions that required a simple, factual answer (e.g. sources of information about reporting guidelines) were coded by one author (DG). For open questions that produced complex, free-text responses where quantitative analysis was inappropriate, DG and one other author (RD or MB) undertook independent qualitative analyses to identify themes in the data  and codeFrom the 197 e-mail addresses on the IAVE list, 16 produced an e-mail failure message after both the first and second attempts. Alternative e-mail addresses were found for eight of these journals and the invitation e-mail resent, but e-mail failure messages were still received for four journals. Hence, it was presumed that the Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals received the e-mail invitation (Appendix 1).A total of 76 responses were received. Eight responses were identified from the IP address as partial responses where respondents had subsequently answered the questionnaire in full without this being automatically recognised by the Cvent software, so these partial responses were removed from the sample. Therefore 68 usable responses were received from the Editors-in-Chief of the 185 journals contacted, giving a response rate of 36.8%.Optional information on the country of journal publication was provided by 37 of 68 respondents (54.4%). Seventeen journals were from Europe, eight from North America, five from Asia, six from Africa and one from Australia. The title of their journal was provided by 34 of 68 respondents (50.0%).Just under 53% (36/68) of total respondents knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire, while 47.1% 32/68) had no previous knowledge. Thirty-two of the 36 respondents who knew what a reporting guideline was answered some or all of the supplementary questions that were presented to them in Section 1 of the questionnaire. These editors had mainly learned about reporting guidelines from articles in other journals, by the Internet and through their own journal, with several naming more than one source  answered the second compulsory question on whether their journal referred to any reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. Of these, 35.1% (20/57) said that their journal did, 59.6% (34/57) said that their journal did not, and 5.3% (3/57) said they did not know.Uniform Requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals [Sixteen of the 20 respondents whose journals referred to reporting guidelines indicated the guidelines used Table . In addijournals . Five reFifteen respondents whose journals referred to reporting guidelines in their instructions to authors indicated what they did with submitted studies that did not follow the relevant reporting guideline, but otherwise satisfied their editorial criteria. Three editors said they would be rejected, 11 said they would be returned to the authors to modify in line with the reporting guideline, and one editor said they did nothing, but relied on the reviewers’ comments.For respondents whose journal did not refer to reporting guidelines, the reasons given included the opinion that existing instructions to authors and review processes were sufficient, and that reporting guidelines were not appropriate for the types of article submitted to their journal. Lack of personal knowledge or previous consideration of reporting guidelines by the editors themselves, the setting of policy by the publisher, and the belief that reporting was a responsibility for authors were other themes in the data. It was also suggested that existing reporting guidelines were difficult to implement and would place an undue burden on reviewers.Respondents whose journal did not refer to reporting guidelines in their instructions to authors were asked if their journal had plans to implement reporting guidelines in the future. Of these respondents, 29.4% (10/34) responded “Yes”, 17.6% (6/34) responded “No”, 35.3% (12/34) responded “Don’t know”, and 17.6% (6/34) did not respond.Forty-four respondents  answered the question on whether they believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Of these, 68.2% (30/44) believed they should, 11.4% (5/44) believed they should not, and 20.5% (9/44) said they did not know.In response to the open questions, the main reasons given by those believing they should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals were that guidelines would improve the quality of reporting of research, would ensure consistency of standards across studies and across journals, and provide a guide to reviewers and authors. One respondent commented: “If all journals started to emphasise reporting, ultimately authors would start to consider these aspects in their study design at the planning stage”.The themes arising from the responses of those who thought reporting guidelines should not be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals included the belief that the current system was satisfactory, that there should be “a freedom for editors and authors to have other ways of ensuring high quality work”, that reporting guidelines did not suit all subject areas or study types, and that authors might be hesitant to submit to journals that applied the guidelines strictly.The most common theme arising in responses to the open question about factors preventing the adoption of reporting guidelines was a lack of knowledge among authors, reviewers and editors. The influence of “tradition”, fear or resistance to change within the veterinary community was also widely mentioned, as well as concern about cultural differences between journals and between countries, the increased workload that could be caused, and economic factors. Another theme was the belief that authors would prefer journals without reporting guidelines, leading to a fear of losing submissions if a journal were to adopt them. One editor referred to “the current need to accept/publish minor quality papers even in higher ranking veterinary journals”, and another referred to the “publish or perish syndrome” as potential factors preventing the adoption of reporting guidelines.A common theme on factors to promote more widespread adoption of reporting guidelines was communication and increased awareness amongst the veterinary community, with roles proposed for the IAVE, EQUATOR Network and Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine. Suggested ways to increase awareness included promotion on the Internet, information and links on journal websites, editorials, conferences and targeting authors from developing countries. The importance of education and continuing professional development for all involved in the authoring and publishing process was highlighted, including a specific role for universities in educating veterinary students and young researchers about reporting guidelines. It was suggested that there should be a consensus policy among veterinary journals on guideline implementation, with the IAVE involved. There were conflicting opinions on who should “enforce” guidelines, whether editors or authors, through “pressure” on journals.Several respondents indicated that this survey had in itself made them aware of reporting guidelines. One respondent commented: “It made me think about several aspects of our journals and how can we improve our researchers’ capability to report accurately their findings”.Of the 42 editors who answered the question on whether more information about reporting guidelines would be useful, 37 (88.1%) said “Yes” and five (11.9%) said “No”. In the open responses, the most suggested ways to disseminate information on reporting guidelines to veterinary editors were by e-mail, meetings, and websites. Editorials, articles and educational activities were also mentioned. Again several respondents indicated that the IAVE should play a part.Major findings of this study were that nearly half of the responding Editors-in-Chief had not previously heard about reporting guidelines, and that only around a third of their journals referred to reporting guidelines in their instructions to authors. This lack of awareness is likely to be a barrier to their widespread implementation by veterinary journals.Among the Editors-in-Chief who were aware of reporting guidelines, CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most widely-known, and these were also the most frequently mentioned guidelines in instructions to authors according to the survey. This may reflect the types of studies published in many veterinary journals  or the ways in which information about these guidelines has been disseminated. CONSORT is one of the most widely cited reporting guidelines in the medical literature and has undergone evaluation and revision over time . There hUniform Requirements [Although their journal’s instructions to authors were considered as a type of reporting guideline by five editors in this survey, author guidelines do not usually provide the detailed information necessary for complete and accurate reporting of individual study types, and do not reflect a consensus among experts. Two editors cited the ICMJE irements  as theirImplementation of guidelines by journals can occur in several ways—inclusion in instructions to authors, inclusion in instructions to reviewers, and the use of reporting guideline checklists for authors and referees ,40. TherA recent systematic review found that medical journal endorsement of CONSORT was insufficient to ensure the completeness of reporting , and twoIt is notable that some respondents believed that reporting guidelines were not necessary, or that their own guidelines and review process were enough to ensure the quality of published papers. Yet analyses of published veterinary research suggest there is room for improvement -23 and tOur survey results indicate that two-thirds of Editors-in-Chief believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all peer-reviewed journals, and many expressed an interest in receiving more information about reporting guidelines. Thus, more effective dissemination of information to editors and authors and a better understanding of the relevance of reporting guidelines to veterinary research have strong potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future. A relatively high proportion of respondents learned about reporting guidelines through other journals, so editorials and the re-publication of reporting guidelines appear to be effective ways of disseminating information about their use and applicability in different disciplines. Many respondents mentioned the Internet as a source of information—there is scope to increase awareness of the resources for editors on the EQUATOR Network  and IAVEThe response rate of 36.8% for this survey was comparable to the response rates of 27.6% and 39% obtained by Shamseer et al.  and HopeA possible limitation to this study is that survey recipients with an awareness of, or interest in, reporting guidelines might be more likely to respond. The results might therefore have been questionable if the survey had found a high degree of awareness of reporting guidelines among the respondents. However, it is clear from the actual data that there were considerable numbers of Editors-in-Chief who were previously unaware of reporting guidelines, with potentially more among the non-respondents.Another potential issue is that it was possible for respondents to go back and change their answer to Question 1, “Before receiving this questionnaire, did you know what a reporting guideline/standard was”, after they saw the explanation of reporting guidelines later in the questionnaire. Some respondents may not have answered truthfully if they thought this was knowledge they should possess. However, the answers to Question 1 could also have been refined in cases where respondents were familiar with the concept of reporting guidelines, but did not initially recognise the term in Question 1.As the questionnaire could be answered anonymously, it was not possible to obtain information about all respondents and to determine whether they were representative of the population of journals in the IAVE database. Anonymity was felt to be important to ensure an adequate response rate, because the survey was partly about the editors’ personal knowledge and views on a potentially sensitive topic. Indeed, since only around half of the responding editors chose to identify themselves, this suggests that the response rate would have been lower had disclosure been required. Importantly, those Editors-in-Chief who did provide identifying details represented a wide range of geographical locations.This survey is subject to reporting bias, as respondents were asked to report what they do, which may not be what they actually do in practice. Only an examination of the instructions to authors for all the journals in the sampling frame would provide a completely accurate assessment of current practice.The results of this survey provide valuable information on the awareness, knowledge, policies, and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief about reporting guidelines, and perceived barriers to their adoption by veterinary journals. Editors have an important leadership role in the implementation of reporting guidelines and improving the quality of research reporting, yet many appear to have little or no knowledge of reporting guidelines. More effective communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, reviewers and authors has strong potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future.Acta Scientiae VeterinariaeActa Veterinaria (Beograd)Acta Veterinaria BrnoActa Veterinaria HungaricaActa Veterinaria ScandinavicaAdvances in Small Animal Medicine and SurgeryAlexandria Journal of Veterinary SciencesAnatomia, Histologia, EmbryologiaAnimalAnimal BehaviourAnimal BiotechnologyAnimal GeneticsAnimal Health Research ReviewsAnimal Reproduction ScienceAnimal WelfareAnnales de Médecine VétérinaireAnthrozöosArchives of Veterinary ScienceArchivos de Medicina VeterinariaArquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e ZootecniaAustralian Cattle VeterinariansAustralian Veterinary JournalAvian DiseasesAvian PathologyBerliner und Münchener Tierärzliche WochenschriftBMC Veterinary ResearchBrazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal ScienceBulgarian Journal of Veterinary MedicineBulletin of Animal Health and Production in AfricaCanadian Journal of Veterinary ResearchCanadian Veterinary JournalCiência e AgrotecnologiaClinician's BriefComparative Clinical PathologyComparative Exercise PhysiologyComparative Immunology, Microbiology, and Infectious DiseasesComparative MedicineDanish Veterinary Journal/Dansk VeterinærtidsskriftDiseases of Aquatic OrganismsDomestic Animal EndocrinologyEgyptian Journal of Comparative Pathology and Clinical PathologyEgyptian Journal of Sheep and Goat SciencesEquine Veterinary EducationEquine Veterinary JournalEstonian Veterinary ReviewEuropean Journal of Companion Animal PracticeFinnish Veterinary Journal/Suomen EläinlääkärilehtiFlemish Veterinary Journal/Vlaams Diergeneeskundig TijdschriftFolia VeterinariaHungarian Veterinary Journal/Magyar Âllatorvosok LapjaILAR JournalIndian Veterinary JournalInternational Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary MedicineInternational Journal of Veterinary ResearchInternet Journal of Veterinary MedicineIppologiaIranian Journal of Veterinary ResearchIraqi Journal of Veterinary SciencesIrish Veterinary JournalIsrael Journal of Veterinary MedicineJapanese Journal of Veterinary ResearchJournal of Advanced ResearchJournal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association / American Journal of Veterinary ResearchJournal of Animal Breeding and GeneticsJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal NutritionJournal of Applied Animal Welfare ScienceJournal of Aquatic Animal HealthJournal of Avian Medicine and SurgeryJournal of Camel Practice and ResearchJournal of Comparative PathologyJournal of the Egyptian Veterinary Medical Society of ParasitologyJournal of Equine Veterinary ScienceJournal of Exotic Pet MedicineJournal of Feline Medicine and SurgeryJournal of Fish DiseasesJournal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society/Deltion tes Ellenikes Kteniatrikes EtaireiasJournal of Herpetological Medicine and SurgeryJournal of Medical PrimatologyJournal of Small Animal PracticeJournal of the South African Veterinary AssociationJournal of Swine Health and ProductionJournal of Veterinary and Animal SciencesJournal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and ResearchJournal of Veterinary CardiologyJournal of Veterinary DentistryJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationJournal of Veterinary Medical ScienceJournal of Veterinary Pharmacology and TherapeuticsJournal of Veterinary ResearchJournal of Veterinary ScienceJournal of Veterinary Science and TechnologyJournal of Wildlife DiseasesJournal of Wildlife RehabilitationJournal of Zoo and Wildlife MedicineKafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi DergisiKafr-El-Sheikh Veterinary Medical JournalKenya VeterinarianKleintiermedizinKleintierpraxisLaboratory AnimalsMagazyn WeterynaryjnyMedical and Veterinary EntomologyMedycyna WeterynaryjnaNew Zealand Veterinary JournalNigerian Veterinary JournalNorwegian Veterinary Journal/Norsk VeterinærtidsskriftOnderstepoort Journal of Veterinary ResearchOnline Journal of Veterinary ResearchPakistan Veterinary JournalPesquisa Veterinária BrasileiraPferdeheilkundePhilippine Journal of Veterinary and Animal SciencesPig JournalPoint VétérinairePolish Journal of Veterinary SciencesPraktische TierarztPratique Medicale et Chirurgicale de l'Animal de CompagniePreventive Veterinary MedicineProduction Animales (INRA)Reproduction in Domestic AnimalsResearch in Veterinary ScienceRevista de Ciências Agroveterinárias Revista do Centro de Ciências RuraisRevista Mexicana de Ciencias PecuariasRevista Veterinária NotíciasRevue de Médecine VétérinaireRevue Scientifique et Technique Sahel Journal of Veterinary SciencesScandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal ScienceSchweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde/SATSheep and Goat Research JournalSlovenian Veterinary ResearchSmall Ruminant ResearchSuez Canal Veterinary Medical JournalSwedish Veterinary Journal/Svensk VeterinärtidningTanzania Veterinary JournalThai Journal of Veterinary MedicineTheriogenologyTieraerztliche Praxis (Grosstiere)Tieraerztliche Praxis (Kleintiere)Tijdschrift voor DiergeneeskundeToday's VeterinarianTopics in Companion Animal MedicineTransboundary and Emerging DiseasesTropical Animal Health and ProductionTropical VeterinarianTurkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal SciencesVet On-LineVeterinaria MéxicoVeterinarija ir ZootechnikaVeterinarski ArhivVeterinárstvíVeterinary Anaesthesia and AnalgesiaVeterinary and Comparative OncologyVeterinary BulletinVeterinary Clinical PathologyVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and TraumatologyVeterinary DermatologyVeterinary EconomicsVeterinary Immunology and ImmunopathologyVeterinary JournalVeterinary Medicine: Research and ReportsVeterinary MedicineVeterinary MicrobiologyVeterinary OphthalmologyVeterinary ParasitologyVeterinary PathologyVeterinary QuarterlyVeterinary Radiology and UltrasoundVeterinary RecordVeterinary Research (Pakistan)Veterinary Research Veterinary Research CommunicationsVeterinary Sciences TomorrowVeterinary SurgeryVeterinary TherapeuticsVeterinary WorldWest Indian Veterinary JournalWiener Tierärztliche MonatsschriftZoo BiologyZoonoses and Public HealthVeterinary Clinical Pathology.MC founded and co-ordinates the International Association of Veterinary Editors, which receives financial support from Wiley and Elsevier. MC is also the former Editor-in-Chief of DG participated in the design of the study, drafted the questionnaire, analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. RD participated in the design of the study, helped to draft the questionnaire, coded data and helped to draft the manuscript. MB participated in the design of the study, helped to draft the questionnaire, coded data and helped to draft the manuscript. MC participated in the design of the study, tested the questionnaire, distributed the invitation to Editors-in-Chief and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Questionnaire on reporting guidelines for veterinary Editors-in-Chief.Click here for file


The field of nutrition continues to attract increasing interest from health professionals, including dietitians, sports nutritionists and medical practitioners, from biomedical, agricultural, nutritional and food scientists and from health conscious consumers alike. A major driver of this increased interest is the growing global concern about health sustainability and recognition of the economic importance of developing more cost-effective strategies for health development and management which will enable us to maintain quality of life and productivity in an aging population and reduce our increasing dependence on costly medical and surgical interventions. Of the potential diet and lifestyle approaches, the concept of functional foods has generated much interest in recent years. The promise to consumers of greater opportunity for self management of their health and to food manufacturers of heightened consumer demand for healthy products has been a major impetus for innovation, marketing and regulatory change in the food industry. etc. yet few with a direct focus on nutrients per se. Yet fundamental to designing, evaluating and/or promoting healthy foods is an understanding of the physiological effects of constituent nutrients, together with knowledge of their safety and efficacy, physicochemical properties, organoleptic attributes, sources, availability and sustainability, to name a few relevant fields. These and many more fields of multidisciplinary interest are encompassed in the scope of Nutrients. Clearly the introduction of a journal bearing the name Nutrients is intended to address this topic directly and in the broadest sense.A key factor in the rapid development of functional foods has been the role of nutritional science in the identification and utilisation of bioactive nutrients. Indeed, regulatory developments such as health claims on food labels are heavily dependent on rigorous nutritional science for substantiation of claimed benefits. There has been a proliferation of new journals and information services relating to functional foods, nutraceuticals, Nutrients, as an open access online journal, will similarly impact on the field of nutrition by stimulating even greater interest in nutritional research and citation of publications, thus making an important new contribution from which existing publications may also expect to benefit.Researchers in the field of nutrition already have a wide range of journals in which to publish their findings. Many reputable, long-established journals originated through professional nutrition and dietetics organisations. Others have expanded from related disciplines to embrace nutrition. Whilst these journals vary considerably in quality and popularity, the overall impact of nutrition-related journals is relatively low compared with other fields of biomedical science. There are many possible reasons for this. One obvious one must be a relatively low readership. Yet, at the same time, there is increasing interest from professionals, industry and lay people alike in the latest developments in nutritional and functional food research. This is clearly evidenced by the recent proliferation of web-based alerting and abstracting services in the field. Moreover, the free access offered by most of these services must be raising awareness of developments in nutritional research and stimulating readership of relevant publications. We expect that Nutrients will receive manuscripts of original research, review articles or commentaries for expert peer review; those deemed acceptable will be published online as soon as practicable. In most cases, this will precede the formal publication date for the relevant issue. Being open access means that anyone can access and download journal articles directly from the website without cost. In order to do this, a fee will be charged to the contributor on acceptance of a manuscript for publication. This also means that new research can be accessed very rapidly by an unlimited readership. Moreover, we expect relevant articles in Nutrients to be cited by the major nutritional and food alerting services who will be able to provide free electronic links to the full text article, thus ensuring widespread awareness of newly published papers. Accordingly, we expect articles in Nutrients to be extensively cited and we hope to achieve Medline and other major journal database listings with a journal Impact Factor in a relatively short time frame. To facilitate this process, Nutrients will publish a variety of special issues in topical areas with invited reviews and guest editors from leaders in the field, thus ensuring interest in the new journal as well as providing a new forum for citing existing publications in the field of nutrition. Moreover, all articles will be published free of charge to the contributors in 2009. We hope that the impact of these strategies will be to stimulate heightened interest in and awareness of nutritional research. As with other international journals in the field, Nutrients will be addressed in the broadest sense in this new journal. Traditional definitions and classifications of nutrients will be extended to include all food ingredients that can positively impact on health in both humans and animals. Moreover, coverage will extend from the farm through food manufacturers and consumers to the sports field or clinic. Topical issues of nutrient sources, safety and sustainability will be addressed, together with global nutritional issues ranging from under nutrition to dietary excesses and diseases of affluence. A list of suggested topics appears on the journal’s website. The list is far from exhaustive but indicates the likely emphasis of the journal’s content. Whilst its focus is clearly on nutrients and health, the journal recognises that health benefits are unlikely to be obtained from nutrients in isolation. Indeed, we anticipate that many contributions will reflect the role of nutrients and foods as an integral component of broad-based lifestyle approaches to health optimisation and even as complimentary therapies, including adjuncts to drug therapy. With this broad outline, we trust that potential contributors will be encouraged to submit papers relating to all aspects of nutrients, confident that the journal’s editorial board with its extensive multidisciplinary expertise and experience is well qualified to appraise and promote high quality research. As stated above, the topic of Finally, I would like to congratulate the publishers, MDPI, for taking the initiative to establish a new online journal in what they had perceived to be an important field of knowledge growth and application. I trust that researchers, readers and stakeholders alike will value the investment that has been made for us by MDPI and profitably utilise our new resource.


We are proud to present the inaugural issue of G3: Genes | Genomes | Genetics, an open-access journal published by the Genetics Society of America (GSA). The journal’s team of over 60 associate editors and 4 section editors, all practicing scientists—your peers—have come together to form a new, open-access journal with a unique mission and vision. The Editorial Board of G3 taps the expertise of the community of geneticists in the widest sense, from microbes to humans, from individuals to populations, and from classic “wet lab” experimentation to the most recent innovations in bioinformatics.Geneticists have never been more prolific, and there is no shortage of venues for presenting their discoveries. So why do we need yet another scholarly journal? We see two compelling reasons.First, because new sequencing and other technologies have greatly expanded the experimental reach of geneticists, we are now able to apply genetic analysis to species previously out of our range. Many of these and other studies may not be of wide interest or provide a significant mechanistic insight (yet), and thus are not appropriate for the broad audience of the GSA’s long-standing, flagship journal GENETICS. We and the GSA Board of Directors saw the need for a journal to serve the genetics community by providing an outlet for dissemination of findings and experimental resources in genetics and genomics—an outlet unrestricted by subjective editorial criteria of perceived significance or predicted breadth of interest. In brief, we are interested in publishing papers that describe useful, well-executed, and lucidly-interpreted genetic studies of all kinds.We recognize our responsibility to enable documentation of reagents and resources, description of foundational work in developing areas of genetics, and datasets for meta-analysis, to name a few. We see a need for a journal to provide a unified home for reporting genome sequences, genetic and physical maps of organisms, mutant screens, QTL mapping, and many other important and useful datasets. We also recognize the need to provide fair and rapid peer review and be a respected source of interesting papers—a place where people want to publish their work. We’ve launched G3 to fulfill these needs.Second, publication of data, ideas, and conclusions is the bedrock of science. We believe that practicing scientists must play a central role in that process. Many journals will publish our work, but few carry the imprimatur of an organization of peers with a long history of supporting our field. The Genetics Society of America has an illustrious record in scientific publishing with its groundbreaking journal GENETICS, the first American journal of genetics, established in 1916 by the founders of our field. G3, as a sister journal of GENETICS, will continue the tradition of science run by scientists.G3 will maintain a standard of quality to make the journal desirable, both for publication and for perusal. The data will be high-quality and the conclusions well-supported. The journal is focused on publishing results of genetic research—research that encompasses a range of experimental analyses in established model systems, as well as investigations into less well-trodden genetic territory. G3’s focus on genetics means that the editorial board can remain relatively small and respond to the needs of our community.The best journals offer innovative ways to present your work. For example, G3 (and GENETICS) provides links [within articles] to model organism databases, so with one click a reader can access a gene name and a wealth of associated information. In addition, we’ve responded to our community by providing a forum where all data are available—whereby researchers can drill deeper in their exploration for meaning. Beyond publishing research that meets our standards, G3 leaves it up to the community to determine its level of significance and utility. It’s often impossible to predict whether an article will have widespread importance. This is the serendipity and joy of scientific discovery.And one of the best aspects of G3? After investing your resources and yourself in your research, you want a quick decision and prompt publication. G3 strives to offer a decision within 30 days of submission, and online publication within 45 days. G3 is fully open access, with a Creative Commons license that allows the freest use of the data: anyone can download, analyze, mine, and reuse the data provided that the authors of the article receive credit. We believe that rapid dissemination of useful data is the necessary foundation for analysis that leads to mechanistic insights. Our hope is that this strategy will spawn new discovery. And because the GSA journals have taken a leading role in ensuring full availability of all data related to an article, we pay more than just lip service to the meaning of open access.Submit your work for publication in the newest journal of the GSA and trust decisions made by your peers. Because your research is important to you, it’s important to us.


Electronic information transfer has replaced previous written information in nearly, if not all fields of communication to a high percentage. This method includes social information which is commonly spread by radio and television (and only delayed and less intensively distributed by newspapers), as well as all fields of science. This information can be classified into "spread of research results and ideas"  and into "direct research participation" . Open access publication is a specific form of electronic information transfer. It is based upon an open information transfer medium such as the internet, and offers a non-commercial, i.e., free, access to read all included articles. The payment for this is provided by the authors (or their institutions), and interested companies by advertisement. Obviously, open access can be easily provided in electronic communication, and is, in general, difficult to be implemented by non-electronic media worldwide.Diagnostic Pathology can be considered as a good example for the advantages and disadvantages of open access publication in surgical pathology (tissue - based diagnosis) and related fields. It started as a completely new journal  in March 2006. From the beginning it was created as an independent scientific journal. The authors keep their rights, BioMed Central (the publisher) regulates the financial aspects of the journal and its layout, the Editor and the Editorial board are responsible for the scientific quality of the published articles, and the staff at BioMed Central is responsible for formal correctness and quality.Our open access journal Disadvantages of open access publication have been mentioned as non-negligible financial burden to the authors, missing scientific quality because outstanding scientists and researchers prefer to publish in "conventional structured journals", easy, non-controlled "black" copies of compartments of or complete published articles, and new, often hard to evaluate mixture of articles that focus on quite different medical (or scientific) fields, i.e. that are completely organized in a "databank environment".Diagnostic Pathology in the last five years? We have to admit, that, at the beginning in 2006, we had great doubts about the willingness of authors and their institutions to invest their money in electronic publication, and in a "fresh" journal without any reputation, as it was not yet listed in the Thomson Reuter's Citation Index. It needed about six months to overcome this constraint, and after one year it seemed that the journal had found a solid basis of existence. One reason can be found in the acceptance of case reports, which was the focus of the majority of published articles then. Quite often these articles were submitted from colleagues working in developing countries and we were glad to assist them in publication. On the other hand, we had our doubts upon this kind of publication, as these case reports might depress or even block the evaluation and acceptance of the journal by Thomson Reuter's Citation Index.What are the experiences with our journal In addition, we always took care that our colleagues, namely pathologists, could read articles they are interested in, in a conventional manner. This is assured by the formal appearance of the journal on its homepage, with only minor disturbances from advertisement or subjects that are related to other medical fields.The advantages of open access publication include fast and world-wide spread of the published articles, no costs for the readers, control of access to specific articles (number of hits), followed by article ranking and evaluation of scientific interest of the readers, fast publication, and potential implementation of future publication features.Diagnostic Pathology might be useful for comparing the disadvantages with the advantages. A milestone in the journal's progress was the inclusion into the citation index carousel in 2010. A citation index of 1.3 has been received despite all fears that case reports might block this attribute. We have still to work on increasing the citation index, because it is the major justification to receiving money for publication from various resources. However, our limitation is that we still want to assist colleagues from developing countries, and to encourage them in publication in our journal.The recent development of our journal The number of submitted and published articles has increased after the inclusion into the citation index library by nearly double within the last year. The percentage of submitted articles which we had to reject remained constant at about 35%. Thus, the citation index is one major component to secure the submission of articles.Diagnostic Pathology.In aggregate, to assure certain constancy in the scientific quality, the kind of accepted articles and official reputation are significant conditions to successfully establish and run an open access journal such as What are the perspectives of our journal? When analyzing electronic open access publication, potential new developments, the most of our published articles contain histological images, most frequently derived from immunohistochemically stained slides. These slides display certain specific areas, which are thought to be representative for the disease under discussion. In close collaboration with companies in the scanning industry  we will be able to publish not only specific areas , but, in addition, completely digitized slides which contain the ROIs.An example of this technique is shown in Figure The reader can verify the correct selection  of the ROI by navigating through the whole digitized slide. The viewer and the virtual slide will be uploaded just by clicking on the image.Navigation through the whole image, magnification of any areas at all microscopic levels as well as photographic shots are possible.Starting in 2011, the authors of any accepted article are free to select this advanced technology at no additional cost, or can alternatively choose to stay with the conventional method of displaying images.Diagnostic Pathology.All in all, the year 2010 was a successful year. Having received the Impact Factor, both the number of submissions as well as the scientific quality of these manuscripts increased. We are now in the situation to include more advanced technologies in our journal. The readers' access to virtual slides will be the first step, and others will follow based upon the collected experiences. The final aim will be to use all appropriate items which are offered by electronic media to distribute and further analyze scientific information submitted for publication in our journal The authors, interested readers, the Editorial board and BioMed Central team remain, of course, the sound basis in running any kind of peer reviewed scientific journal. Certainly, we will not forget their significant influence and contribution to the obtained success and further development of our journal. We appreciate very much all their efforts and identification with our journal.We want to express our deep gratitude to, and we wish all our authors, readers, reviewers, and our publication team a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year.Klaus KayserEditor in Chief


European Radiology, Insights into Imaging, EPOS, EUROAD, ECR abstracts) to comply with the highest ethical and scientific standards, as well as to its editorial policy of promoting and protecting the original authors’ scientific work.The European Society of Radiology (ESR) advocates best practice in the research process and requires all authors who submit their material to its peer-reviewed scientific publications  to risk and discomfort if a too-small sample size does not allow significant scientific conclusions . The EurAnimal studies must follow the FELASA guidelines  for animal use and for the training of persons involved in experimental animal care and use . Before Patient privacy in medical research is a basic right of all study participants, and investigators must ensure that sensitive information about a person is thoroughly protected against unintentional leaks. Obviously, articles must not contain identifiable data of any sort within the text, tables and images. In addition, general principles and regulations on how to handle personal data to guarantee confidentiality should be adhered to. At the European level, this is regulated by the Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, which was implemented in 1995 by the European Commission . The priAll manuscripts submitted to ESR scientific publications should be original work, created by the indicated author or author group. Gift authorship is strictly discouraged  and it iIn general, submission of a manuscript to one of ESR’s scientific publications strictly implies that the submitted work: (1) has not been published before, (2) is not under consideration for publication anywhere else and (3) has been approved for publication by all co-authors, if any, as well as by the responsible authorities, tacitly or explicitly, at the institute where the work has been carried out. If authors are planning to use their own previously published material to an extent that exceeds fair use, they must obtain permission from the copyright holder.The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides practical guidance to assist researchers in the preparation of manuscripts: The principles enshrined in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals  are incoAuthors wishing to include images or text passages that have already been published elsewhere must obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) and include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors. Paraphrased material must be cited by source. If authors use information word for word, it should be in quotation marks with appropriate bibliographical citation. The accuracy and completeness of references in any submitted material is the sole responsibility of the authors.Finally, even if information that is freely distributed in the public domain is used , the authors are profiting from the material and must still, therefore, receive permission. Occurrences of plagiarism are grounds for rejecting manuscripts.It is the policy of ESR to ensure balance, independence, objectivity and scientific rigor in its publications. All authors are expected to disclose to the readers any real or apparent conflict(s) of interest that may have a direct bearing on the subject matter of the article. This pertains to relationships (remunerated or not) with pharmaceutical companies, biomedical device manufacturers or other corporations whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. In particular, authors must acknowledge those companies who have supported the Department(s) where the work was carried out or may have sponsored the study in any way.The intent of the policy is not to prevent authors who may have a conflict of interest from publishing their work. It is merely intended that any potential conflict should be identified openly so that the readers may form their own judgements about the article with the full disclosure of the facts. It is for the readers to determine whether the authors’ outside interest may reflect a possible bias in either the exposition or the conclusions presented.In addition, it is now considered good practice for each published article to be countersigned by a ‘guarantor’ for the entire study. This may be the tenured senior author but it could be the Head of Department, Research Lead or other tenured staff member who is deemed to take overall responsibility for all aspects of the study . ESR uses this policy for original articles published in its journals .Possible scientific misconduct includes: redundant publications , data fabrication/falsification , ‘salami slicing’ (dividing the same study/patient group into two or more articles and submitting them as different studies), overlapping publications , gift authorship (co-authorship awarded to a person with no or little involvement in the research process) and undisclosed conflicts of interest. It is appreciated that such some of these events may occur unintentionally or may sometimes arise out of naivety.Copying ideas, writings, etc. from another and passing them off as one’s own is called plagiarism. Plagiarism can take many forms and vary in degree, but is considered as intellectual dishonesty.As defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ‘Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions’ .Accidental or unintentional plagiarism may occur when authors are largely unaware of citation and documentation rules guiding scientific practice. Inexperience with research methods, ignorance of citation rules and sloppiness are among the most common causes for this type of plagiarism.Reviewers for ESR’s scientific publications are chosen because they have intimate knowledge of the area of science in question and are usually fully conversant with the recent literature in their respective areas of expertise. Thus, the misappropriation of source material is often brought to light thanks to highly alert reviewers.In addition, ESR is currently employing plagiarism-detection software to robustly detect highly and suspiciously similar written text. In instances where verbatim (word-for-word) plagiarism or redundant publication is suspected, the editors will carry out further investigation, with the help of editorial staff, expert reviewers and original copyright holders. If an initial suspicion is reliably confirmed, appropriate action will be taken, as recommended by COPE .The first and obvious sanction in case of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, is that the paper in question is not accepted by the journal or online publication. In other cases, some journals suggest that the (group of) author(s) are not entitled to submit another article for a certain period (e.g. a year or more).It is recommended that authors always notify the editor of previous articles  on similar topics. Furthermore, the discussion of any article should clearly point out exactly how the current article builds on previous work and that it confirms/refutes previous published statements. If the editor, as a result of the author’s failure to disclose previous publication, is unaware of an apparent duplicate publication at the time of going to press, the journal reserves the right to issue a notice of duplicate publication and retract the paper as soon as redundancy is exposed. Similarly, other forms of serious scientific misconduct may lead to formal retraction of the paper.Depending on the severity of the scientific misconduct, the editors may decide to impose sanctions against authors who have transgressed; this involves a letter to the Head of Department or University Dean, informing them about the malpractice and asking for an official explanatory statement .In cases of suspect behaviour, the corresponding authors and relevant superiors  will be informed.Disciplinary steps can range, depending on the severity of the fraud, from publication of an apology or erratum, withdrawal of the article, to the refusal to consider more articles by that department or institution (e.g. for 6 months or up to 1 year). In the most serious cases of infringement or where the situation is debatable, the case could be referred to COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics). Other Editors may be informed and the withdrawal of all articles by the respective author might even be considered.This paper has demonstrated some of the problems encountered by the Publications Department of the ESR and the way in which the Society reacts. Those issues related to publication in journals are in some ways the easiest to identify and deal with, as there is considerable written guidance on such issues. It is perhaps more difficult to spot duplication in case reports submitted to an online teaching file or abstracts to conference proceedings. However, the ESR is determined that exactly the same standards should be applied to all submissions to the Society. It is hoped that this article will act as a ‘wake up call’ to prospective authors and to Heads of Departments alike.


The act of publishing scientific research preserves our past achievements while laying a foundation for future progress. Consequently, assurance of quality is crucial to further scientific research, and it is imperative for leaders in the community to maintain appropriate standards while making publishing as dynamic as modern times require.Brain and Behavior to become both your regular source for neurology, neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry research, as well as a platform by which you will offer your best science to the broadest community possible.With the launch of this open access, multidisciplinary journal, we offer a broad scientific community a forum for rapid publication of original contributions, covering all aspects of neurology, neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry. By offering quality assurance through stringent peer review and delivering content quickly, broadly, and effectively, we aim for At the launch of this Journal, my colleagues asked me: why yet another journal? And then: why should authors pay for their manuscripts to be published online?It turns out that despite all of the journals available to scientists, publishing a strong manuscript can still be challenging. Many accomplished scientists can tell you stories of submitting their best papers to two or three different journals before they were finally accepted for publication.Meanwhile, not all manuscripts feature groundbreaking, novel research; many papers contain solid experiments and clinical studies that merely serve to confirm others’ theories or experiments. These latter papers are important because even the best theories or break-through experiments must often wait for multiple confirmations before they are accepted by the scientific community. Unfortunately, space limitations and page budgets frequently force editors and reviewers to choose between novel, ground-breaking research and quality confirmatory studies, often at the expense of the latter.This is where digital publishing comes into play. In the digital era, content becomes limited only by the device used to access it. Journals are now accessible on computers at institutional libraries, on laptops in homes, on mobile devices in coffee shops – virtually anywhere the internet is available. Access to the Web has granted scientists an unprecedented view of the world that will undoubtedly expand as future information technologies continue to tear down barriers.The open access publishing model gives authors an opportunity to disseminate their results to an extremely wide audience in new ways. Authors can publicize their work knowing that readers can instantly access it without the need for institutional or personal subscriptions. Given this landscape and the fact that publishing in this digital age is evolving rapidly, it is anyone's guess as to where we will end up in the future. Nevertheless, one thing remains certain: scientists will still need a way to filter sources and ensure that information is trustworthy. Proliferation of various electronically published periodicals can mislead an ever-growing readership, and it is imperative for leaders in the scientific community to maintain the standards of peer-reviewed publications while making publishing as dynamic and advanced as possible.I would like to congratulate Wiley for taking a proactive approach by putting professional resources behind their neurology, neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry family of journals and moving forward with open access publishing. We debated at length  how best to proceed, and your feedback as authors and readers is very important. Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions through the Journal website.Brain and Behavior.Together with my Associate Editors, our multidisciplinary Editorial Board, and Editors of participating Wiley-published journals, I look forward to developing this open access journal,


Biology Open (BiO) was one of the journals that received as a submission a spoof article devised by a journalist working for the journal Science  interpreted by some as proof that OA publishing is in some way inherently flawed.BiO seems to have passed some sort of test , no journal can afford to be complacent. The soundness of BiO's peer review process and associated ethical practices will continue to be a key focus of its editors, and now seems a good time to reiterate some of the principles that guide our editorial policy.Although BiO aims to provide rapid peer-reviewed publication of scientifically sound observations and conclusions. Reviewers are asked to confirm that the experimental work is properly conducted and that the conclusions are adequately supported by the data. We do not require any assessment of the significance, relative importance or impact of a paper, as we believe this will gradually emerge post-publication. Therefore, we ask reviewers to simply address the following criteria:Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is of vital importance in scholarly publishing . BiO aimThe experimental research component is technically and ethically sound.The conclusions are all adequately supported by the data.The title and the summary of the manuscript accurately report the main conclusions.The figures and tables are clear.The language is clear and accessible.http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/reproducibility) and we believe that it is important to tackle this issue.We are currently implementing the addition of a new acceptance criterion – that the methods used are described in sufficient detail to allow proper repetition of the experiments. Recent articles have highlighted failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research (e.g. http://publicationethics.org). When the decision was made to launch BiO, it was the COPE guidelines and codes of practice that were employed. In addition, BiO follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor's (http://www.icmje.org) recommendations for the “conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals”.Over the past decade or so, many initiatives and codes of practice have been established within the scientific publishing community. Many now feel routine (such as having dotted lines between spliced gel lanes), whereas others continue to evolve. The Company of Biologists is a member of COPE, The Committee on Publication Ethics  inappropriately influence (bias) the full and objective presentation, review or publication of research findings. Competing interests can be financial, professional or personal, and can be held by authors, their employers, sponsors of the work, reviewers, Editors and editorial staff.BiO requires that a Conflict of Interest statement be included in each article, even if this is used to declare that there are no conflicts. Authors must include information regarding the provider of financial and material support of their research in the Funding section. Reviewers, Editors and Editorial staff are also required to disclose financial or professional associations that might interfere with their objectivity.BiO requires that authors include a statement in the manuscript that specifies the contributions of each author. An author is someone who has made significant and substantial contributions to a study. These should include conception, design, execution and interpretation of the data being published, and preparing the article.Recent discussions have focused on the evolving issue of authorship. The ICMJE has recently proposed a new criterion for authorship. This states that an author must “be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.” This has prompted discussion of the genuine feasibility of this, in particular with regards to large multi-centre research.BiO submission process is set by default to ensure that all authors are included in relevant editorial correspondence. Papers must be submitted with the agreement of all authors, and all authors must approve the version to be published. However, this can't always protect the journal from those intent on perpetrating misconduct, such as using fake but active and plausible email addresses for co-authors who may not be aware that an article has been submitted in their name – to use one actual example.The Despite the policies, checks and balances that have been implemented, it can be difficult to identify and block papers that include flawed work or outright fraudulent data. Although BiO passed the spoof paper ‘test’, we will continue to review our role in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.