In the field of organismal biology, as in much of academia, there is a strong incentive to publish in internationally recognized, highly regarded, English-language journals to promote career advancement. This expectation has created a linguistic hegemony in scientific publishing, whereby scholars for whom English is an additional language face additional barriers to achieving the same scientific recognition as scholars who speak English as a first language. Here, we surveyed the author guidelines of 230 journals in organismal biology with impact factors of 1.5 or greater for linguistically inclusive and equitable practices and policies. We looked for efforts that reflect first steps toward reducing barriers to publication for authors globally, including the presence of statements that encouraged submissions from authors of diverse nationalities and backgrounds, policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, whether translation and editing resources or services are available, allowance for non-English abstracts, summaries, or translations, and whether journals offer license options that would permit authors (or other scholars) to translate their work and publish it elsewhere. We also directly contacted a subset of journals to verify whether the information on their author guidelines page accurately reflects their policies and the accommodations they would make. We reveal that journals and publishers have made little progress toward beginning to recognize or reduce language barriers. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Many policies lacked transparency and clarity, which can generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both prospective authors and journal editors. We highlight examples of equitable policies and summarize actions that journals can take to begin to alleviate barriers to scientific publishing. Journal Citation Reports impact factor score  the encouragement of submissions from diverse authors, (2) acknowledgement of the English-hegemony in scientific publishing, (3) policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, (4) the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, (5) whether translation and editing resources or services are available, both as a free service or at the author's expense, (6) allowance for non-English abstracts or summaries, or translations of the main text in the Journal Citation Reports  for the following categories: biodiversity and conservation, ecology, entomology, evolution, fish, plant science, and zoology, which resulted in 759 journals. For this study, we considered “highly ranked” journals as those with an impact factor of 1.5 or greater, which is an arbitrary threshold that ensured a large remaining sample size of 352 journals. From there, one person (author JB) inspected the aims and scope sections of journal websites, as well as the titles and abstracts of recently published articles, and excluded any journals that did not convey a strong focus on organismal biology. We excluded (i) journals that primarily focused on the application of methodology or phenomena that occur at other biological levels of organization , (ii) journals and book series whose contributions were by invitation only, and (iii) two journals published by the American Museum of Natural History, given that only Museum associates are allowed to publish there. This left 230 journals in our dataset . We defined a society as a group of scholars with shared professional interests. We initially screened each society to confirm that membership was open to anyone with interest, but this information was difficult to find on some webpages and we decided to designate any journal associated with a society of any kind as a society journal. We surveyed the author guideline pages of each journal in our dataset for language-inclusive policies and practices. It is possible that journals describe relevant policies and practices elsewhere on their websites, but we did not look at any other webpage beyond the guideline page unless it was obviously relevant and a prominent link was provided. To standardize our assessments and minimize subjective bias, data for each variable  licenses prohibit any remixed, transformed, or expanded versions of the original work from being distributed. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, translations are considered a derivative work (Compendium (Third) § 101.1(A)., Does your journal allow a title, abstract, and keywords in a second language for each accepted manuscript? (2) Does your journal allow authors to submit the manuscript in a different language as the  We recognize that data collection on translations will be incomplete in our survey, as some authors may choose to include translations as We recognize that a lack of information about an inclusive practice does not necessarily mean that it would not be allowed. To confirm whether abstracts and Do your license agreements permit authors to publish their manuscripts in another journal afterward ? (4) Do your license agreements permit authors to publish previously published manuscripts in your journal ?The legal jargon used to describe copyright and licensing policies can make it difficult for authors to determine how their work can be used in the future. Thus, in our direct emails, we asked for clarification on whether copyright and license agreements permit dual-language publication in multiple journals. We further asked: (3) The 230 journals in our study are published by 39 companies , 72% of n = 4) had a statement of inclusion at the time of our survey, three of which were society journals (n = 2), neither of which was a society journal, explicitly stated that it would not reject a manuscript based on English language quality alone  explicitly stated that manuscripts would be rejected based on perceived English language quality. The adjectives used to describe the criteria for rejection included “poor,” “substandard,” “acceptable,” and “insufficient” use of English. One journal recommended authors try to minimize the “annoyance” of their reviewers by having their work reviewed by an English-speaking colleague. Journals that were scored as ambiguously referring to their English-language rejection policy included statements such as “Editing services can greatly improve the chances of a manuscript being accepted” and “You need to ensure the English language is of sufficient quality to be understood.” The majority of journals did not refer to English language use at all when discussing manuscript rejection.Only 1.3% of journals  and 62.1% of society journals (n = 69) spanning 20 publishing companies (n = 26), it was often unclear whether titles and keywords could also be translated, and seven journals seemed to only allow translated abstracts in selected languages . In addition, one journal required an abstract in Spanish or Portuguese if the presented work had been conducted in Latin America and another required an abstract in Chinese if one or more co-authors were Chinese.Links to editing or translation services were provided by 70% of all journals  responded to direct email inquiries about non-English abstracts, n = 45) that responded to the question about second-language abstracts, two confirmed that they would allow it despite not mentioning this possibility on their author guideline pages, suggesting that some journals are more accommodating than their formal policies convey  accept Copyright Transfer Agreements to allow an article previously published in another language to be considered for publication in a Wiley journal. Their website gives this example scenario: “OUP encourages, for full article reuses only, the translation of its content into other languages”  copyright policy states that “Our survey revealed that highly ranked journals in organismal biology have made little progress toward promoting linguistic equity. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Exclusionary policies impose additional barriers for EAL scholars, and policies that lack transparency and clarity are similarly damaging as they generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both EAL scholars and journal editors. The current publishing culture and practices prohibit equal participation in science, which can negatively impact the career trajectory of EAL scholars  and limiWe recommend the editorial team of each journal expand their mission and values statements to specifically address and value the scientist as well as the science . A missihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biological-conservation/about/editorial-board). Editors can familiarize themselves with data-driven research on language barriers to inform effective actions to alleviate inequities. Potential preliminary actions include setting achievable goals based on demographic and publication data and regularly assessing progress toward goals. In addition to providing options for commercial English editing services, journals can also develop opportunities and programs for EAL scholars to develop their English-language writing skills. For instance, journals could work with their associate editors to identify the most common areas for improvement of English-language use in submitted manuscripts and offer online workshops and resources for addressing them. Lastly, journals, publishers, and indexing platforms  might consider using machine translation systems to enable quick and affordable translations  can reduce the commitment needed from individual language editors.Several society journals provide free assistance with English-language use and grammar to enhance the professional development of their members, alleviate financial or linguistic barriers to publication, or increase the global sharing of scientific knowledge. For instance, the American Society of Mammalogists has formed a “buddy system” through which EAL authors who submit a manuscript to the r review . The AssIn addition to equitable guidelines and policies, journals can adopt publishing models that maximize the access and impact of scientific knowledge. For instance, ideally, all manuscripts would be published open access and with a license that permits translation. We found that many journals offer options that permit translations to their authors as part of their open access initiatives. However, publishing under flexible licenses, like the CC BY license, often costs more than publishing under a closed or partially open access license. We would be remiss not to emphasize that the major fallacy of the open access model is that it relies on an author-pays business model meant to mitigate article processing charges . These cd means” . The excWe recognize that our recommendations reflect preliminary and relatively low-impact steps toward reducing barriers to publication for EAL scholars and that they do not address the larger, prevailing issues that perpetuate disparities in access and opportunities. To achieve equity in scientific publishing, we must reject pay-to-publish models in favor of author-led, nonprofit models . Additioobad003_Supplemental_FilesClick here for additional data file.


Har Gobind Khorana (1922–2011) received the 1968 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine  for his work in deducing the codon basis of the genetic code  carried a smile across the world, even in tough times. Ever endearing, he performed extraordinary research in chemistry and biology, such that the world still benefits greatly from his scientific achievements to this day. To those he interacted with, Gobind set an example on how one can be both an excellent scientist and a compassionate human being—he was indeed open to sharing everything he knew and generated.This commentary is a call for submissions to celebrate the genius of Gobind on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth. Submitted works are to be published in an upcoming Biophysical Reviews’ Issue Focus on the science and life of Prof. Har Gobind Khorana. Though many articles have already been solicited through personal invitations, international scientists sharing a common area of research interest with Gobind are also encouraged to contact the Guest Editors to discuss the possibility of making a submission. The issue focus will be prepared and edited by the current authors .Review articles are requested to be submitted prior to August 1st of 2022 with online publication scheduled for Issue 5 of that same year. When submitting your article, please choose the correct Special Issue assignment.http://www.springer.com/journal/12551.Journal homepage https://www.editorialmanager.com/brev/ journal social media.Online submission Biophysical Reviews publishes two types of review formats. A short review  or a long review . A series of Commentaries  from scientists having a close relationship with Prof. Har Gobind Khoran are also requested.The journal operates two social media sites, the details of which can be found here:Twitter™: @BiophysicalRev1https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzG_5MWmnrB2UBibtxs2DuAYouTube™: Biophysical Reviews is a hybrid open-access journal and therefore operates on a two-track payment. The first track is completely free but requires that the article exists behind a paywall for 6 to 12 months whilst the second track involves an open access charge of ~2000 Euros. Both tracks give a highly desirable publishing outcome for the author. Please contact the Special Issue Editors for further description of this point.


Eight years ago I was invited to be the editor-in-chief of the Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - which had just been indexed in Medline. The invitation was a surprise; however, with the support from the director of publications, Prof. Silvio Caldas Neto, the deputy director of publications, Prof. Regina Helena G. Martins and the Chairman of the ABORL-CCF, Prof. Richard Voegels, I accepted to face the challenges imposed on me.Besides the scientific aspect, paper submission and the review by two reviewers had just migrated to the “virtual world”. We had many papers awaiting review and acceptance for publication. Structurally, the journal is formatted with a limited number of original papers, case reports and review papers, so unfortunately it was not possible to publish them quickly.Some of the authors, when meeting me at random would ask: “João, when will my paper be published?”; “It has been a while that it was accepted and has not yet been published.”; “My study will be outdated.” These were some of the things I heard. I think they were all right in wanting their papers, clinical trials, case reports and observations to be published as soon as possible, however, we had a physical limitation. I chose to use the order of the paper submission protocol number as criteria for setting the publishing queue. Some colleagues would not agree with this for fear that their papers would become obsolete; however, I saw this as the most honest approach with all the authors. At the time, our journal was one of the major national publications in its field, and it still is. Thus, it serves as a tool to spread the knowledge created in Brazil for all our members.Because we acquired a high profile due to our presence in MedLine, many foreign authors began to submit papers for publication in our journal. This was another big step conquered representing its internationalization.I am very proud to have participated as editor-in-chief of our journal over the administrations of Prof. Richard Voegels and that of Prof. Ricardo Ferreira Bento. Likewise, I am grateful to the associate editors and reviewers with whom I had the opportunity to work. At the end of five years, we had faced and overcome many challenges and setbacks, managing to maintain the high scientific level of our journal, significantly expediting the publication of papers and taking the first steps to be accepted by the ISI, which occurred under Prof. Wilma Terezinha Anselmo-Lima, whom I congratulate for the competence and the work she has been doing for our journal.This year, the Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology turns 80. It is not the journal that deserves congratulations, but rather all colleagues who directly or indirectly contributed to its development and establishment as the most important scientific journal of the Brazilian Association of Otolaryngology and Neck and Facial Surgery.


The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP  and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices. Irrep. 1.1The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines are a prominent framework to help journals develop and implement clear policies regarding open science . As descBox 1. •Citation Standards: Citation of datasets in the text and reference sections of manuscripts •Data Transparency: Public availability and sharing of datasets •Analytic Methods (Code) Transparency: Public availability and sharing of analytical  code •Research Materials Transparency: Public availability and sharing of other research materials •Design and Analysis Transparency: Transparent reporting of study design and analysis •Study Preregistration: Specification of study details prior to conducting the study •Analysis Plan Preregistration: Specification of analytical details prior to conducting the study •Replication: Encourages publication of replication studiesLevels of Implementation•Level 0 (Not Implemented): The journal encourages an open science practice or says nothing about the open science practice.•Level 1 (Disclosure): Published manuscripts disclose whether or not the study incorporated the open science practice.•Level 2 (Requirement): A study must incorporate the open science practice for the manuscript to be published.•Level 3 (Verification): The journal (or another independent third party) verifies that the study appropriately incorporated the open science practice according to journal standards.Adapted from previously published grids  is an easy choice…[but] another issue to consider is that…there is always a risk that enough information can be gathered from different sources to identify individuals'.. 3.2.3Other topics provided elaboration on enablers and barriers examined in the questionnaire. For example, one editor explained why TOP is a low priority: ‘TOP guidelines are not a very high priority concern relative to daily priorities for running the journal…At this moment our focus has to be on daily operations and in the long run, having a diversity statement that contains measurable objectives. TOP was not even on my list until this survey'. Editors also expressed concerns about TOP implementation leading to increased demands, especially for more stringent levels of implementation: ‘moving to what TOP Guidelines define as Level 3 requires time and somehow a cultural change in our specific authors…This is something that has to be done gradually, introducing step by step new requirements for our authors'. Several editors also spoke to their organizational context, namely the role of the editorial board, sponsoring society and publisher: ‘we don't have the authority to implement these guidelines; it would go through other channels '. The kind of influence that these other stakeholders have may vary by discipline, business model of the journal and publisher capacity: ‘We are changing publishers next year, which will make it much easier to adopt the guidelines'. Lastly, several editors said that they needed more knowledge about and skills in implementing TOP to consider it further: ‘I am new to much of this but think it potentially important and will look into it more’.. 4We found most participating editors support implementing at least one of the eight open science standards at Level 1 or higher, and they perceive that other editors also support some level of adoption. Consistent with previous studies ,54,57, e. 4.1Our findings have implications for the development of interventions to increase open science using best practices for translational research . InterveOur findings also indicate that interventions to implement open science journal policies should target publishers and manuscript submission systems. That is, we found that many editors do not plan to implement open science policies, and they report time as an important barrier. In an analysis related to this survey, we previously found that 335 eligible journals were affiliated with 86 publishers and 33 manuscript submission systems, and the majority of journals used the submission systems ScholarOne and Editorial Manager . Working. 4.2Our study has several limitations. Firstly, because we did not ask detailed questions about support for each specific TOP standard, some editors found our questions to be overly broad, and thus difficult to answer. To encourage participation, we intentionally designed a brief questionnaire and used the lowest threshold possible for adopting TOP (i.e. Level 1 implementation of at least one open science standard). Although a more detailed survey might have further clarified specific enablers and barriers to implementing specific TOP standards, we might have received fewer complete responses. Secondly, our questionnaire has not undergone psychometric validation. Although we organized our narrative around the three components of the COM-B model, we did not assess their reliability, so we focused our interpretation on the individual items. Future iterations of this questionnaire could be compared with our results and with other studies that assessed determinants of open research practices .Our results might generalize to journals like those that participated in this study. Eligible journals had to publish studies of social and behavioural interventions, so our results might not generalize to disciplines and journals that do not publish this type of research. If editors who support TOP were most likely to participate, then our results might overestimate actual support, and they might overestimate the difference between perceived and actual support. Evidence that non-participating editors did not open the survey—choosing to ignore our unsolicited email invitation—suggests that non-response bias could be limited. We also did not find evidence that current open science policies or journal characteristics differed between journals whose editors participated and those whose editors did not participate, further reducing concerns about non-response bias.. 5We found support for the TOP Guidelines among editors of journals publishing influential intervention research. Quantitative findings identified enablers and barriers to implementing TOP that are linked to domains and constructs from theories of behaviour change. Qualitative responses elaborated on quantitative findings and further indicated that editor support can vary by study type, open science standard and level of implementation. Our findings can be used to develop theoretically informed and scalable interventions that aim to facilitate journal implementation of open science policies. Based on the BCW approach, these interventions include goal setting, action planning, monitoring and feedback, and instruction on and support in implementing TOP.


In this Editorial, we highlight our achievements of the last three years, our core values, and tell you about our aims for the future. Nanoscale Advances. We have been thrilled to see your support of the journal ever since it was launched in 2018 and the first issues published in 2019. We wanted to take a moment to thank you, our readers, authors, and reviewers, for helping Nanoscale Advances become a valued home for good quality, reproducible new work, accessible to a global, interdisciplinary network of nanoscale researchers.Welcome to issue 1 of our fourth volume of 1 The Royal Society of Chemistry is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)2 and we recognise that the impact factor is something of a crude measure. However, it remains an important metric to many in our community, thus we are excited to let you know that in June 2021 Nanoscale Advances received its very first partial impact factor, embedding our position within the nanoscience publishing community.1Nanoscale Advances.The journal has grown steadily over the last three years, publishing 501 articles in 2019, 564 articles in 2020 and we expect to publish more than 600 in 2021. Our authors come from 75 different countries across the globe, and we aim to provide a consistently fair and efficient publishing service to everyone. The median time from submission to first decision over the last 3 years is 37 days, so you can expect a fast but rigorous experience when you submit to We recognise that many funding bodies and institutions now require authors to publish in an open access journal. The demand for open access has grown considerably over recent years, and the Royal Society of Chemistry aims to shape the future of open access publishing and maximise the visibility of research in the chemical sciences and related areas.As a society publisher, our mission is to disseminate chemical knowledge to the largest audience possible, to the benefit of the global scientific community and we aim to do this by focusing on delivering high-quality impactful, accessible, and reproducible content and an excellent customer experience.Nanoscale Advances is the first journal by the Royal Society of Chemistry that is Gold Open Access from launch, and the first in a series of new launches that aim to support our transition towards open access publishing, in line with the rapid changes in the publishing landscape. In July 2021, Nanoscale Advances introduced article processing charges (APCs) for articles that are accepted following peer review.3 The competitive APC is in place to support a sustainable open access business model. We believe that open access publishing needs to be available to everyone, regardless of their economic background, thus discounts and waivers are available for authors, depending on their individual circumstances. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a not-for-profit publisher, so our APCs not only cover the high-quality peer review process for the journal and the maintenance of our publication platforms, but also support the services and resources the Royal Society of Chemistry provides to the community.4 These range from grants and awards, to tailored support for chemistry teachers and people working in industry.Nanoscale Advances are offered a year’s free affiliate membership of the Royal Society of Chemistry, so they can take advantage of some of the benefits we offer, such as membership of subject interest groups, career advice, and mentoring.Corresponding authors who pay an APC to publish in Nanoscale Horizons, Nanoscale, and Nanoscale Advances, and these are all part of a collaborative venture between the Royal Society of Chemistry and a leading nanoscience institute, the National Center for Nanoscience and Technology (NCNST) in Beijing, China.The nanoscale journal family at the Royal Society of Chemistry provides full coverage of interdisciplinary advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The family of journals are Each journal covers the breadth of topics within nanoscience and nanotechnology, but each has its own distinguishing features so you can choose the journal that is right for you and your research.Nanoscale Horizons aims to publish ground-breaking work representing a new concept or a new way of approaching a problem. Nanoscale and Nanoscale Advances aims to publish original, insightful, and significant papers, which are also reproducible, but the key criterion for publication in Nanoscale is novelty. The main difference between Nanoscale and Nanoscale Advances is the general significance and broad appeal of the work. Manuscripts of broad general interest are suitable for Nanoscale and those of a more specialised nature might be suited for Nanoscale Advances. Most importantly, Nanoscale Advances offers you Gold Open Access publication with a choice of CC-BY or CC-BY-NC licenses. This might be of particular importance to you due to personal preference or because of mandates from your funder.Nanoscale and Nanoscale Advances have a shared Editorial Board, so the same high profile Associate Editors handle manuscripts for both journals. If you submit to Nanoscale and are offered a transfer to Nanoscale Advances, the same Associate Editor will handle your article in both journals. This reduces delays and ensures an efficient transfer of the history of your article, including any reviewer comments. In addition, several of our Associate Editors also act as Scientific Editors on Nanoscale Horizons, helping to provide a complete overview of the family to ensure we are providing you with a consistent experience.We offer an efficient manuscript transfer service, where appropriate. Our hope is that no matter which journal you submit to, you will find the most appropriate home for your work with the minimum hassle. To facilitate this, We have big plans for the future and we invite you to be a part of them. A new themed collection programme will be launched throughout 2022 to feature aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology where particularly exciting developments are taking place.Nanoscience and nanotechnology have gained significant momentum in research activity. Considering the transdisciplinary nature of such research, it is important to have a versatile platform to disseminate new advances in the field. To this end, we not only turn to our committed authors and express a deep gratitude for their valuable contributions, but also give a warm welcome to our new readers/authors.”Professor Dirk Guldi, Editor-in-Chief: “Nanoscale Advances forward so that the journal fully meets the needs of our authors and readers. We always welcome comments, suggestions, and feedback, so please do contact us at nanoscaleadvances-rsc@rsc.org with your views and feedback.We are committed to developing and taking Professor Dirk Guldi, Editor-in-Chiefhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3960-1765ORCID: Dr Anna Rulka, Executive Editorhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3236-9801ORCID: Dr Hannah Kerr, Deputy Editorhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2450-126XORCID: Dr Alexander Whiteside, Development Editorhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2450-126XORCID:


Publication of patient images contributes to research and education in dermatology. However, it is important to protect patients’ privacy and rights. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) have provided best practices and recommendations, respectively, for the protection of patients’ rights in scholarly publications ,2. NonetThis study was exempt from institutional review board review as data were publicly available. Themes regarding the publication and deidentification of patient images, as well as the acquisition of consent, were extracted from COPE and ICMJE ,2. On JuA total of 19 (95%) journals’ online instructions instructed authors to obtain written consent or permission for the publication of patient images . The speInstructions regarding the deidentification of patient images and acquisition of consent for publication differed across dermatology journals and incorporated various elements from COPE and ICMJE ,2. Most


Its current IF is 2.340 while last year it was 1.088.2As per Journal Citation Report for the year 2022 released by Clarivate on June 28Another six medical journals from Pakistan have also crossed the first hurdle by getting enlisted in eSCIE which is the first step towards getting IF. Calrivate has now announced that from next year all those Journals will also get an Impact Factor. It is a good news for the country. We are extremely grateful to our members of the Editorial Board, International Advisors and valuable reviewers for their devotion and dedication which has played a vital role in this achievement. Impact Factor, we have always maintained is just one of the criteria but not the only criteria to judge the standard of a journal. In the past there have been lot of controversy regarding the usefulness of IF but we believe that as long as there is no other authentic metric to judge it, IF will remain important and its announcement will be anxiously awaited by the editor’s community all over the world.4IF it may be mentioned here is based on citation frequency of articles from a Journal. For journals in rapidly expanding field like cell biology, computers, medical education tend to get higher Impact Factor than journals in other fields like economics etc. Furthermore, some articles in a journal could be cited more frequently while others may not be cited at all, as such IF, it is said, does not accurately reflect the quality of individual articles published in a journal. Similarly, journals with more issues and articles can earn higher IF which could be misleading as it will not reflect quality of the articles. Yet another point worth noting is that Reviews usually tend to have more citations, editorials, letters, conference proceedings etc., are not counted in articles but if cited are counted as citations for the journal. As such, some editors feel that it leaves room for manipulation of ratio used to calculate the IF which could result in inflated IF in some cases.Preview by Marie McVeigh Head of the Editorial Integrity at Web of Sciences has reported that this year’s data summarized 35,000 publications which included journals, books and conference proceedings, 2.7 million citable items and 145 million cited references indexed in Web of Sciences Core Collection.With the increased cost of production, publication charges had to be increased much against our wishes but the solution lies in having only Online Journals which offer many advantages. One hopes that the regulatory bodies in Pakistan will look at it passionately. Currently all the IF journals published from Pakistan are under tremendous pressure and the authors have to wait for too long to get their research published.Pakistan Association of Medical Editors (PAME) on its part has been trying to build professional capacity of editors in Pakistan. To achieve this objective, it collaborated with University of Health Sciences Lahore and started Certificate in Medical Editing (CME) and Diploma in Medial Journalism for Editors (Dip-MJE). Three CME batches have earned this certificate in which ninety-four healthcare professionals including Editors and Editorial Board members of various journals have qualified so far while the CME Batch-4 and Dip-MJE Batch-One besides second batch of Online Certificate of Medical Editing and Journalism (CMEJ) is under training. All these measures it is hoped will help improve the standard of biomedical journals published from Pakistan further in the coming years.10We also plan to increase the visibility of Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences on the social media to attract more readers and authors. Human Resource and Financial constraints have so far remained the major hurdle which we hope to overcome soon. Realizing our responsibilities of teaching and training of researchers including postgraduates, authors, reviewers, faculty members and Editorial staff of journals, we continue to organize Hands on Workshops all over the country in collaboration with various medical colleges, medical universities and hope to continue this academic activity in future as well.


Southeast Asia is an emerging force of open access scholarly output. For example, Indonesia is in a tight competition with United Kingdom as the largest publisher of open access journals and the second largest producer of open access articles in the world . However, this support for open practices is not yet reflected in institutional research policies in Southeast Asian countries, which still rely on criteria influenced by world university rankings that focus on publication outputs and do not incorporate elements related to research culture, integrity, or open science. Preprints have gained increasing attention across disciplines in the last few years, but they are still not included in institutional policies in SouthEast Asia. This paper discusses the potential for preprints to be a driving force for open science and for quality and integrity in scholarly outputs from Southeast Asia. There is a fledgling preprinting culture in the region, catalyzed by the RINarxiv preprint server in Indonesia and the Malaysia Open Science Platform. We argue that preprints have many advantages: opportunities for open access and for researchers to maintain copyright to their work, wide dissemination, encouraging feedback and critical thinking, and community governance. With these advantages, preprints can become a fast and open communication hub between researchers and all stakeholders in the research process. We recommend regulatory and practical steps to incorporate preprints into science policy and researchers' practices as an effort to promote research integrity, open data and reproducibility. Over the last two decades, a major theme for universities in Southeast Asia has centered on strengthening their reputation and global standing  Nosek, . This raINArxiv was launched on August 17, 2017 as a platform to foster interaction between Indonesian open science activists and the international community. The server was launched on the open-source Open Science Framework infrastructure by the Center for Open Science , or require a creative Commons CC BY license  where tIndonesia has embraced open access as a publication model and is one of the largest producers of open-access articles COKI, . PreprinThe UNESCO open science recommendations highlight preprints as a tool to improve quality and reproducibility across different stages of the research process. Through preprints, researchers can share their work well in advance of journal publication, opening opportunities for community feedback while the research is still ongoing. By virtue of their free availability, preprints allow researchers from a wide range of backgrounds and communities to react to the work, suggest improvements or point out oversights. Because the feedback can be incorporated before the work is even submitted to a journal, preprints can strengthen the research at an earlier stage and lead to greater integrity and quality in the eventual journal publication for that work.While it can be challenging to publish null and negative results in a journal, preprint servers allow researchers to easily share unexpected observations or negative or inconclusive results. The preprint can ensure that those data are available to the research community, which supports reproducibility and reduces publication bias.Researchers have mostly adopted preprints to share their work faster and more openly than was possible through journal publication, but preprints hold much more promise to materialize the benefits of open science practices for everyone involved in the research process. Preprints provide a lever to progress toward the goals outlined in the UNESCO recommendations UNESCO,  as they For funders, preprints provide early proof of productivity and a higher return-on-investment as they allow the sharing of outputs that have traditionally not made it into journal publication. By allowing the inclusion of preprints, funders can access the researcher's most recent accomplishments, focusing their assessment on the science and on the latest developments in the field, rather than on a particular target journal publication that may report work completed months if not years prior. With regard to institutions, support for preprints signals support for avenues for collaboration and feedback among researchers. In addition, considering preprints as part of hiring processes provides institutions with an opportunity to evaluate the applicant for their most recent and relevant research, allowing better informed decisions on their suitability for the particular role.Preprints can also benefit journals. By partnering with preprint servers, journals support open science practices and can innovate in their processes. Many journals have implemented workflows to transfer manuscripts from preprint servers, as is already in place for bioRxiv and medRxiv , no longer face financial hurdles to access the latest findings or to share their own data widely so that they can inform further research or even policy.The experience from RINarxiv in Indonesia suggests that the use of preprints in the region is currently confined to those researchers and communities exposed to open science practices, for example, those involved with the Indonesian Open Science Community. There is thus much work left to do to raise awareness of preprints within local research communities.Our vision for preprints in Southeast Asia is that they will bring more speed, freedom, and reach to science dissemination by becoming the central communication hub for all stakeholders in the research ecosystem . In ordeFunder policies that recognize preprints have been influential in North America and Europe  and preprint servers like RINarxiv to run informational sessions and workshops.Box 1Indonesian researcher Putu Sukma Kurniawan shared his work on indicators for sustainability accounting in small and medium enterprises as a preprint on INArxiv  clearly signal that they value open science practices when completing their evaluations, and that they recognize where preprints are used as a tool to increase research reproducibility and rigor. This involves allowing researchers to include preprints as proof of productivity, recognizing publications -including preprints—that report negative or confirmatory results and recognizing community engagement and collaborations enabled by preprints as valuable research contributions.Indonesia has been noted as one of the leaders in the open-access movement  granted to Applied Geology Research Group, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology.DI and HZ are the moderators of RINarxiv. IP is an employee of ASAPbio, an organization that promotes the use of preprints in the life sciences.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


As the management of the current Board of Directors of Associação Nacionalde Medicina do Trabalho (ANAMT) comes to an end, as well as our time as Editors-in-Chiefat Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho (RBMT), we will briefly summarize thechanges that have been implemented in the Journal since 2020. Our goal is to furtherstrengthen RBMT’s role as an important channel for disseminating scientificcontributions that promote the improvement of working conditions and environments andthe quality of life of health care professionals and workers in general.Initially, we reformulated the Editorial Board to make it more comprehensive bothnationally and internationally. To accelerate and improve editorial production, wedecided to change suppliers and, as of volume 18, issue 2, 2020, we started working withScientific Linguagem, a reference company in the publishing market that works withjournals indexed in SciELO and other databases.We have also been facing the consequences of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemicand its variants since March 2020. These were difficult times, especially for healthcare professionals who worked to exhaustion in hospitals and other places caring forpatients infected by COVID-19. But this tragedy also promoted learning and thediscussion of new topics related to occupational medicine. RBMT encouraged, with aspecific volume edition (20.1), the publication of articles related to COVID-19, withthe objective of further disseminating the benefits of vaccination and measures aimed atreducing the risk of exposure to the virus.In this new phase, the Journal has been significantly improved according to the bestpublishing practices. Some improvements are listed below.The website was redesign, with regular content updates.As of volume 18, issue 2, 2020: inclusion of ORCID iDs in all articles .Review and standardization of data related to editors and members of theEditorial Board, including affiliation and country.Thorough proofreading and translation of article texts.Redesign of all figures.Working together with authors to provide more specific table titles.As of volume 18, issue 3, 2020: funding information and conflicts of interestwere moved from the header to the title page footer to avoid space restrictionsand header pollution.Inclusion of “How to cite” to help authors cite articles correctly.As of volume 18, issue 4, 2020: removal of copyright information (©) fromthe last page of the article, given that the journal does not collect copyright(articles are open access under the CC-BY license).As of volume 19, issue 2, 2021: reformulation of the Instructions for Authorspage, including a clear indication of the journal’s mission.As of volume 19, issue 3, 2021: inclusion of authors’ contributions, asrecommended by the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).Increased number of reviewers and authors with a foreign affiliation.Journal registration on digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, andTwitter for increased reach of communication and dissemination.Finally, in August 2022, we submitted an application for indexing RBMT in SciELO Brazildatabase. We are confident that the application will be approved, which will furtherinsert RBMT in the national and international scientific community, valuing not only thejournal, but all those who contribute with great dedication to occupational medicine inBrazil and Latin America.


Peer reviewers are considered gatekeepers in academic writing who play a pivotal and essential role during the publication process. Excellent manuscripts invariably need excellent reviewers. Producing peer reviewers with such caliber is time-consuming albeit necessary for the progress and continuity of academia. Despite the popular belief that an experienced author invariably makes a good reviewer, the reality is far-fetched. This suggests the need for peer reviewer training, which should be effective, logistically affordable, and demonstrate long-lasting positive impacts. Open review, co-review, and several reviewer training programs are already in place for this purpose with varying efficiencies. This narrative review discusses the current modalities available to a junior reviewer to improve his/her review skills and proposes a reviewer residency concept that could be adopted as a part of peer reviewer training. The delay in peer review is universally identified as a leading factor of the author and editorial unease. To address this, it has become a requisite to train and mentor junior researchers by the journal itself with a system to recruit willing candidates and guide them until independent reviewing -3. Co-reThe modern-day peer review still lacks perfection, and its integrity and efficiency are questioned . While tThis review discusses the currently available pathways for junior reviewers to achieve proficiency in peer review.Open reviewCurrently, some of the leading biomedical journals such as the BMC, BMJ, and Nature Communications adopt an open review system during the review process . Open peCo-reviewCo-review denotes when a non-invited reviewer contributes with ideas or by writing during a review of a manuscript. Usually, co-reviewers are postgraduate students supervised by a senior researcher. It is found that a significant proportion of novice researchers act as co-reviewers alongside their senior researchers . The samReviewer training through editorial assessments, workshops, and learning packagesIn view of improving the quality of peer review, the following had been employed by journals, and their efficacy was subsequently assessed: (1) providing feedback and quality assessment by the editor -14; (2) Out of these, the reviewers had positive remarks on editor feedback on improving their reviews ,14. TheyAccess to other peer reviewer assessmentsSome journals such as the Cureus Journal of Medical Science accommodate the visibility of reviews of other reviewers allocated to a manuscript. This allows a junior reviewer to improve and incorporate analytical aspects utilized by senior reviewers during the review process.Reviewer residency programsWe propose a reviewer residency program to be adopted by each journal to recruit, train, and sustain a pool of peer reviewers. This consists of several stages.Identifying Potential Reviewers Who State Willingness to Undergo Reviewer ResidencyEvery journal provides links to authors who are willing to become reviewers. During this initial stage, the chance to follow the residency can be offered. This should not be based on expertise and experience but on the voluntary desire of the author.Identifying a Senior Reviewer/Editor as the MentorDepending on the commitments of the senior reviewers/editors, several new reviewers can be allocated for their supervision, provided they are willing. Otherwise, each could be given the responsibility of supervising a single new reviewer.Reviewer Residency This basically suggests stepwise training, simultaneous assessment, and ultimately allowing independent reviewing by the new reviewer. This is illustrated in Figure Initial co-review: The junior reviewer is given an uncomplicated manuscript  to review with a standard format to be completed during the review. The format should assess the basic components required in a manuscript. Such formats are available in most of the journals at present, which will make it easier to implement the proposed method. Following completion of the review, the senior reviewer provides his/her review on the same manuscript and discusses the aspects to improve on the new reviewer report. Provided the co-review is of acceptable quality, these reviewer comments could be sent to the author and junior reviewer informed regarding re-review if required and the cycle continues. Gradually complex manuscripts  could be assigned. In case the need for additional expertise is expressed by the new reviewer , they could be directed to suitable personnel (such as statisticians) who contribute to the journal and are provided with the necessary software.Supervised independent review: The number of manuscripts to be co-reviewed should be jointly decided by the senior reviewer and the new reviewer. When both parties are satisfied, the new reviewer can be allocated to review independently supervised by the mentor. By this stage, the reviewer's comments are revised only if required and submitted to the author. The junior reviewer should be provided with comments from other external peer reviewers at both these stages, which will contribute to improving his/her reviewer skills.Unsupervised, independent review: By this stage, the junior reviewer has mastered the basic and advanced skills and knowledge to conduct a quality peer review.Communication between the senior reviewer and the mentees is possible nowadays with online communication such as email, mobile phone applications, and other online real-time communication applications. This will minimize delays in communication and feedback between the two groups. Similarly, to motivate and retain all categories of reviewers irrespective of their seniority, the reviewer names can be included in the published manuscript, which may include the co-reviewers as well. Provision of incentives in the form of waivers for the reviewers during the submission of their own manuscripts and reviewer/co-reviewer acknowledgments annually are all already practiced methods in the majority of the journals.We agree with the authors who have previously suggested that such reviewer training programs might be impractical for journals. However, it is sensible to think that persistent editorial/senior reviewer mentorship will have a sustained positive effect on the reviewer output, provided that both the editor/senior reviewer and the new reviewer are responsible and conscious of the progress of the training. On the other hand, despite being a difficult task to implement such programs journal-wise, with time there will be a competent pool of reviewers and subsequent editors, which will allow the system to self-sustain. The provision of certificates toward the completion of reviewer residency which is accepted in academia would make such programs well-accepted and sought out.Peer reviewer training is imperative in modern times with more manuscripts presented and the competition to publish grows. The current models of peer reviewer training are evolving, and their impact will be analyzed in the future. Peer reviewer residency is a concept that incorporates all these practiced models in view of producing quality reviewers and the sustenance of the review process. Despite already cited drawbacks, such as the practical difficulties of such programs, modern technology has provided alternatives, such as freely accessible communication applications and free software, which would provide solutions to overcome these and continue such programs. It is time to consider adopting these in all journals. As the great Walt Disney remarked, "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths," the academia moves on, and so should the peer review.


Open Biology has had to put in place measures to check the veracity of submitted data and guard against fraudulent papers https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.200165. This year, we will go further to ensure research integrity by collaborating with other publishers as part of the STM Integrity Hub (https://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-integrity-hub/) to share intelligence and best practices. We will also disseminate the importance of integrity and ethical behaviour to potential authors through Research Integrity seminars and training forums, particularly to highlight the insidious practice of papermills.Despite first appearances, this will not be an editorial about melody or mnemonics, but about two new initiatives for 2023. These two initiatives go to the heart of science: integrity and constructive dialogue. Science absolutely depends on integrity—we need to trust that published data are genuine or our whole enterprise fails. Regrettably, this axiom is not always recognised; like many journals, rewarding our reviewers with tokens that can be put towards open access charges for future publications. We hope that this will encourage more people to agree to contribute their valuable time and expertise as reviewers for Open Biology.Progress in science is equally dependent on constructive dialogue: discussions with knowledgeable colleagues help us to clarify our ideas, put them in context and interpret our results from a different perspective. This is the value of peer review, in addition to upholding standards of experimental design and quality of data, but done properly it takes considerable time and effort on the part of reviewers. We recognise this, and to show our appreciation in concrete terms we will be Open Biology. The team have helped to raise the profile of preprint servers, which are an increasingly important conduit for disseminating and enabling equitable access to scientific research.We are also very grateful for the time and effort contributed by our editorial board in handling papers and upholding our journal policies and ethical standards. Special thanks go to our enthusiastic Preprint Team led by our Preprint Editor Michael Ginger, whose goals are to broaden the scope of articles we publish and the visibility of Open Biology as a home for rigorous science, where peer review serves its real purpose to improve the science we publish. But we also want Open Biology to be a place for exciting ideas, so I encourage you to take advantage of our ‘Opening Up’ section in your paper to discuss the wider implications of your discoveries, and our ‘Open Questions’ format to bring unresolved or contentious issues to a wider audience.We hope that our initiatives will help to strengthen the reputation of Open Biology will reward good behaviour on the part of both authors and reviewers, and we all will benefit.Thus,


The pandemic has affected public health and scientific publication significantly, there was a dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications associated w-ith a substantial decrease in non-COVID-19 research. Similar to last year, 25% of the papers published in Saudi Medical Journal (SMJ) were Covid-related articles; and 75% of which constitutes local contributions. We do encourage contributions from other parts of the globe to continue advancing the knowledge on Covid-19 related issues.We hope in 2023 that the dark cloud of COVID-19 is fading away with the present implementation of laws, restrictions, and public health education.Authors seek quick feedback, fast dissemination, citation, and the primacy of their work so they prefer to submit their preliminary, non-peer-reviewed articles to these repositories than the traditional journals. Submission to preprint servers is a personal publishing choice of the author, the peer review process improves but does not eliminate incomplete reporting and spin, however, we at Saudi Medical Journal do not consider submissions of manuscripts posted in preprint servers and also do not consider the use of preprint references. Thus, we revised our policy when it comes to articles that were submitted to these repositories. Any material that has been publicly available, with a permanent identifier and citable will no longer be considered for submission.Some publishing trends have emerged and become popular, especially during the start of the pandemic, one of them is publishing on preprint servers especially since Crossref began assigning DOIs to preprint in 2016.The journal follows the double-blind peer review policy so having a paper posted in preprint servers, publicly available and visible with DOI, with full details of authors such as ORCID will nullify the purpose of the double-blind policy we apply.In early January 2022, the Saudi Medical Journal faced some technical issues with the submission system that probably affected the submission volume and a slight decline in citations.Peer review is vital to maintain the integrity of science by critically assessing and validating the originality and scientific merit of the article before publication and dissemination of information, hence, we discourage preprint.One of the struggles we faced in the peer-review process is keeping the reviewers complete the review of revised versions. Prior to the submission of the review, the reviewers are asked if should they wish to see the article again after it has been revised. Only the reviewers who agreed to see the revised version will be invited and very few reviewers are able to follow this workflow. When a reviewer declines to review the revised version or is not available, this causes lag in the decision process and leaves the editor the task to go over the suggestions of the reviewers. Despite all the technical innovations available, it is still difficult to attract qualified reviewers and establish a dedicated editorial board. Perhaps, a survey for reviewers regarding the evaluation of the revised will help us understand and improve our peer-review processOther ways of addressing this challenge, Saudi Medical Journal highly recognize the reviewer’s contribution to the peer review process. Apart from publishing their names in the yearly Editorial Message, we have activated Publons in our peer review system. Therefore, whenever a reviewer submits a review, they will be asked if they want to receive recognition on Publons.Publons is a free platform that creates and verifies researchers’ peer reviews and editorial contributions. It has joined the Web of Science, so it is linked directly to the Web of Science publication and peer review history. Anyone can register via the Web of Science.This year, Saudi Medical Journal and Neurosciences in collaboration with the Saudi Pediatric Neurology Society conducted a workshop at the “7th Saudi Pediatric Neurology Society Conference & Workshop.” Saudi Medical Journal’s role in this scientific event was to educate participants on how to write a publishable manuscript. Focusing on writing guidelines, peer review process, publishing tips, common reasons for rejection, and avoiding predatory journals. This overview of the publication processes is beneficial for research fellows and residents and all other health researchers.Saudi Medical Journal pledges to continue providing educational events. As the event was a success and well received by the attendees, SMJ pledge to continue providing educational events.This year we received 635 manuscripts from which we processed 309 articles that have complied with the journal requirements . Over th


Introduction: The speed of manuscript publication in reputable journals plays a crucial role in spreading scientific novelties and may influence the number of received citations. In the present study, the authors investigated the publication speed of dentistry journals. This is crucial for both authors, who desire rapid dissemination of their findings, and patients in need, who seek new therapies.Materials and methods: This was a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of published dentistry journals. A list of dentistry journals featured in the 2021 Journal Citation Report was downloaded. A total of five random original articles were extracted from each of these journals. These articles were published between January and December 2020. Median and interquartile range (IQR) times from submission to acceptance, publication in print, online publication, time from acceptance to in print and online publication were calculated. The correlation between publication times and journal impact factor (IF) was examined.p = 0.007), acceptance  to in-print publication, and IF. There were no correlations between IF and time from submission to acceptance, acceptance to online publication, and submission to online publication.Results: A total of 89 journals were included. Individual time from submission to acceptance (peer review time) ranged from 6 to 279 days, the combined median peer review time was 115 (80-159) days. The overall median time from acceptance to online or print publication was 17 (12-38) and 153 (92-249) days, respectively. Journals with available data concerning publication times tended to have higher IF than others. Only journals that did not have available time from acceptance to online publication had higher IF. There were negative correlations between times from submission (r = -0.442, Conclusions: Publication times availability was revealed to be an indicator of higher impacted journals, which is a potential new exponent of journal quality. Higher IF values were associated with shorter times from submission to acceptance and in-print publication, which is consistent with current editorial policies. The process of publishing research changed tremendously over the past years. Publications in highly regarded journals became an indicator of research quality and productivity. Dissemination of research findings within the scientific community gives a possibility to contribute to the evolution of particular fields and convert scientific experiments into hands-on practice . This hoThe publishing process has quickly evolved over the last few years. Submission of paper-written manuscripts was replaced by an electronic manuscript processing system. Instead of mailing manuscript proposals, instant electronic systems give the authors insight into each stage of the publication process -4. AlthoDelay in the introduction of crucial innovations has a negative outcome for patients who need new therapies , 5-6, joFrom the Thomson Reuters website, a list of dentistry journals, indexed in the Journal Citation Report 2021 was downloaded. All journals under the subject category dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in Science Citation Index Expanded edition were selected. Journals that published only review articles were excluded. From each of these journals, a total of five random original articles published between January and December 2020 were extracted. Authors selected articles at their own discretion, with no specific randomization method. To reduce bias, articles were selected directly from the journal’s articles lists without a prior publication speed check. The selection process relied only on the article’s titles and dates of final publication. Review articles, correspondence, and editorials were excluded. The authors collected information about the dates of submission, final acceptance, and online and in-print publication from the final versions of the articles. In accordance with previous studies, the date of submission denotes the date of when a manuscript was submitted for consideration for publication in a journal, the date of acceptance denotes the date of communication of the final decision to the corresponding author of a manuscript, dates of in-print and online publication refer to the date of publication of the manuscript online or in-print [A total of 89 journals were included. Time from submission to acceptance was unavailable for 34 (38%) journals, time from acceptance to online publication for 31 (35%) journals, time from acceptance to in-print publication for 50 (56%) journals, time from submission to online publication for 34 (38%) journals, and time from submission to in-print publication for 53 (60%) journals. Journals with available data concerning publication times had higher IF than others. However, journals that did not have available time from acceptance to online publication had higher IF. All differences were statistically significant  and presented in Figure Individual time from submission to acceptance (peer review time) ranged from 6 to 279 days, the combined median peer review time was 115 (80-159) days. The overall median time from acceptance to online or print publication was 17 (12-38) and 153 (92-249) days, respectively. Table There were no correlations between IF and time from: submission to acceptance, acceptance to online publication, or submission to online publication . There were statistically significant correlations between time from: acceptance to in print publication, submission to in print publication, and IF . Journals with longer times from submission and acceptance to in print publication were associated with lower IF values. Figure Bibliometric analysis of scientific papers has a big importance for the research community. It is used by both researchers and institutions to estimate the time required for paper publication. This study was designed to evaluate publication times in peer-reviewed dentistry journals. Journals that published bibliometric data pretended to have higher IF values. The IF was negatively correlated with times from submission , and acceptance  to in-print publication.The time of publication process is one of the most crucial indicators of a journal’s quality -2, 12. TThe present study is the first that focuses on publication time in dentistry journals. Both review-only journals and review articles were excluded because most of them are invited by editors and do not have to follow the strict timeline -2. To maIn the present study, individual median peer-review time for dentistry journals varied widely, with an overall peer-review time of 115 days. In top plastic surgery journals in 2020, the median time from submission to acceptance was 5.4 months (approximately 162 days), and in ophthalmology journals was 119 days, which is comparable to dentistry journals . SignifiHigher IF values were associated with shorter times from submission , and acceptance  to in-print publication. This is in accordance with policies employed by highly cited journals -20. It wThere are some limitations in the present study. Authors did not have access to some journals which decreased the number of analyzed both journals and articles. A lower number of articles was analyzed than in the previous bibliometric analysis. Only five random original articles were extracted from each journal and no validated randomization method was utilized. Bibliometric factors such as the cited half-life of the journals and immediacy index are both less desirable by the authors and recognizable by the society -28, thusTo the knowledge of the authors, the present study is the first bibliometric analysis of the dentistry journals in the literature. It has the potential to be a valuable source of information for both authors and editors. Authors could easier select journals with short turn-around times and editors compare their journals with each other. Publication times availability was revealed to be an indicator of higher impacted journals, which is a potential new exponent of journal quality. Higher IF values were associated with shorter times from submission to acceptance and in-print publication, which is consistent with mentioned editorial policies.


The advancement of scientific research and raising the next-generation scientists in Africa depend largely on science access. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused discussions around open science (OS) to reemerge globally, especially in resource-poor settings like Africa, where the practice of OS is low. The authors highlighted the elements, benefits, and existing initiatives of OS in Africa. More importantly, the article critically appraised the challenges, opportunities, and future considerations of OS in Africa. Addressing challenges of funding and leadership at different levels of educational, research, and government parastatals may be pivotal in charting a new course for OS in Africa. This review serves as an advocacy strategy and an informative guide to policymaking and institutionalization of OS in Africa. Open science (OS) is a movement focusing on making science more open, accessible, effective, democratic, and transparent to society, notwithstanding the level of education (1). Suffice to say that OS, as an inclusive science, potentially closes the science, technological and innovation divide between and within nations. According to the final report of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on OS, twelve elements of OS exist, including open data, open infrastructure, open access (OA), open hardware, open laboratories, open-source, open innovation, open notebook, open evaluation, open educational resources (OERs), crowd funding, and citizen science UNESCO, . UNESCO Access to science holds the key to strengthening health systems, advancing scientific research, and efficiently training Africa's next-generation scientists. However, this access is limited mainly due to inadequate funding of science in Africa, with poor funding of 0.1–0.5% gross domestic product (GDP) for science and technology in many African countries as against UNESCO's recommendation of at least 1% GDP  council, while promoting OS, adopted a revised “Recommendation on Access to Research Data from Public Funding.” The revised recommendation aimed to enhance access to scientific data in order to address global challenges, and at the same time, to advocate for protection of specific data. This is clearly outlined in the European Commission Recommendation 2018/790 of April 25 2018  within a secure and trusted environment, through digital infrastructures (including those federated within the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), where relevant), unless this is not possible or is incompatible with the further exploitation of the research results . This could be for reasons, in particular, of privacy, trade secrets, national security, legitimate commercial interests and to intellectual property rights of third parties. Any data, know-how and/or information whatever its form or nature which is held by private parties in a joint public/private partnership prior to the research action should not be affected by these policies or national action plans. (L134/15).A recent study highlighted the need for shared information to all, citing an example of what the world is currently facing with the COVID-19 pandemic Paic, . The autvia mobile phone technology), for effective patient engagement. For this purpose, collaboration occurs in the form of peer-to-peer clinical support. Also, with the mHealth platform, the OS provides a virtual collaboration setting that engages research scientists in quickly sharing knowledge for clinical innovation with their global network. In OA, Besancon and coworkers  and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Meanwhile, 125 OA digital repositories in Africa are registered in the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) while 18 OA policies from the region are listed in the Registry of Open Access Repository Policies and Mandates (ROARMAP). Ever since, a lot more African researchers also publish in international OA journals. Some African institutions are on the lead and have taken initiatives to boost OA movement in Africa. For instance, Stellenbosch University offers on-site trainings and shares valuable materials online to new OA repositories while the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) in partnership with UNESCO Cluster Office in Southern Africa offers training to OA journal publishers in the region  and International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP) support libraries in the region while the Irish African Partnership for Research Capacity Building (IAPRCB), joins several universities in Ireland, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda to develop a harmonized approach to research capacity building through its OA repository. The International OA Week has been made annual events in some African research institutions and helps in raising consciousness among academic communities of the region about the benefits of OA.In addition, the Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA), representing 66 public universities in Southern Africa, published a research report on Opening Access to Knowledge in Southern Africa, recommending OA as a potential strategy for Africa. To some extent, all major stakeholders—researchers, research administrators, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, librarians, OA experts, students and general public—have started to realize the benefits of OA and seem to be making efforts, albeit little, to implement OA projects in the region.UNESCO had shown their readiness to work with African countries willing to work toward national OA policy and also called for training centers to build capacity and expertise on OA ideas and structures. In 2015, UNESCO, Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Kenya National Academy of Sciences, and Kenyan Ministry of Education, Sciences and Technology jointly hosted a consultative meeting on OA for Africa in Kenya bringing together about 45 top policy makers and expert representatives of 20 countries of Africa providing intervention for research and development in Africa.Africanfossils.org has also been established as a free online virtual lab for scholars to explore and interact with fossil collections under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike License  hosted her conference in 2016 titled “Electronic Publishing: OA Movement and the Future of Africa's Knowledge” in Dakar, Senegal where opportunities and challenges to the OS movement in Africa were discussed. This led to a Dakar Declaration on OS in Africa where all the signatories agreed to promote and support OS across Africa by organizing events on OS which will target both students and researchers. To foster scientific innovation and capacity to contribute to global scientific research output, African countries should be provided with virtual high-tech laboratories under an open license in addition to the standard OA materials such as course materials, textbooks, multimedia applications etc. This trend is beginning to emerge as there are online scientific laboratory initiatives in Africa that will boost the commitment to OS as an academic practice. Eighteen African governments have established the African Virtual University Project (AVU), a leading eLearning Network in Africa with the vision to meaningfully increase access to quality higher education and training through the innovative use of information communication technologies (ICTs) covering several scientific disciplines. Similarly,  Canton, .The LIBSENSE initiative launched in 2017 has been building a community of OS practitioners and making headway for the adoption of OS services and structures in Africa. The initiative was led by West and Central African Research and Education Network (WACREN) in partnership with a number of other organizations with the aim to advance OS in Africa through strengthening and expanding services at the institutional, national and regional level  that work in the field of OS and have some form of internal frameworks to fulfill their set objectives . HoweverThe capacity for Africans to fully exploit the opportunities presented by digital revolution that could drive innovation and development on the continent would be greatly enhanced by a strong, multi-state OS system  and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals  will be far from being met in Africa if OS is not prioritized through a working policy for Africa. Again, some pre-existing policies, habits and processes that had earlier been helpful are now obvious inhibitors of innovation, and need to change  and the Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA)—partnership of AAS, NEPAD Agency with US$5.5 million initial seed funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department for International Development (UkDFID). These funders provide not only funds for future infrastructural development, but also expertise, and contacts to international expertise and national/regional governance stakeholders  to be able to avert the cost implications of scientific equipment or to reduce them drastically  supporting policy-makers and heads of institutions to understand the key elements necessary to create supportive policy environments, develop materials, use technology, and conduct research; (2) identifying best-practice examples of use of OER and facilitating institutional visits, so that participants have an opportunity not only to observe effective use of OER in practice but also to start developing support networks and communities of practice (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development, The question to ask as Africa embraces advancements in OS is “who needs to be trained?” This should be informed by research and not by assumption. We posit that every length and breadth of the stakeholder chain in African OS system may require some form of training or the other Onie, . Having The essential skills needed for institutions to effectively utilize OER include:OER advocacy and promotion skills.Knowledge on content licensing legal framework.Skill in business model development, course development and programme design.Technical know-how and network management.Expertise in monitoring and evaluation.Skills in effective curation and sharing OERs.Research and communication skills for information sharing (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development, To aid training in OS, free online resources should be readily available. In recent times, there has been a surge in written materials, YouTube videos, and mass open online courses in different languages Onie, . Beyond This study might have missed out some important articles on OS published in other languages other than English, considering the multilingual nature of the African continent. Again, we could not access a few non OA articles at country or organizational level which may also be useful to our evidence synthesis. The evidences available in literature may not be reflective of the true situation in some countries of Africa or may have since changed especially as there are a few or no information on open science practices in many African countries. However, we carefully executed the literature selection of this exploratory review and ensured contextual interpretation of our findings to enhance the usefulness of this study as an advocacy tool for OS in Africa.In this exploratory review, we critically analyzed a reemerging issue in Africa—OS—occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlighted OS benefits, OS platforms, challenges, and opportunities in Africa. OS offers several benefits to the development of science in Africa including but not limited to sharing of scientific data. It provides opportunities for all to work together at the same time building understanding of research procedures, practices, and findings. OS stakeholders need to promote, utilize, and upscale the OS platforms and initiative highlighted in this study and only then can they benefit from OS as themed above: networking and collaboration, public engagement and public trust, visibility and impact, scientific community and, innovation and commercialization. Some of the major challenges that plague OS in Africa were highlighted in this review but the lack of funding for science seems more critical as it directly impact other challenges. We have created a conceptual framework for creating OS solutions in Africa following the evidences generated from the literature on the challenges of OS in Africa . This isIO and SM: conceptualization. IO, SM, TC, ZH, EU, and KC: methodology, data curation, visualization, validation, resources, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing. IO: project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Veterinary World editorial team would sincerely like to thank all of our reviewers who contributed to peer review for the journal in 2021.


Insects. This event provided an opportunity for scientists from around the globe to communicate their most recent research findings in entomology. In the last decade, there has been tremendous development of entomological research, leading to the publication of thousands of important studies. 1IECE aimed to rapidly spread worldwide advances in insect science to the entire scientific community through the publication of proceedings of selected papers in a Special Issue (SI). This SI employed the same eight fields used for topical subdivisions during 1IECE: Systematics and Morphology, Genetics and Genomics, Biology, Behavior and Physiology, Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Pest Management, Forest and Urban Entomology, Medical and Veterinary Entomology, and Apiculture and Pollinators. In total, 21 1IECE presentations have been published in the journal Insects through the traditional peer review process. The contributors to this Proceedings SI represent 23 countries from across the globe: Togo, Senegal, Italy, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, Russia, The Netherlands, Cyprus, USA, Spain, South Africa, France, United Kingdom, and Argentina.The 1st International Electronic Conference on Entomology (1IECE) was held between 1 and 15 July 2021 on the MDPI Sciforum platform organized and funded by the international journal Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations [Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Sitobion avenae (F.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) [Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from Serbia through microsatellite loci [Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Dicyphus cerastii Wagner (Hemiptera: Miridae) [Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) [Neoleucopis kartliana (Tanasijtshuk) (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae) in Greece [Drosophila obscura Fallén (Diptera: Drosophilidae) [Drosophila subobscura Collin (Diptera: Drosophilidae) [Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Hemiptera: Tingidae) based on mitochondrial DNA analysis [Oedaleus decorus (Germar) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) [Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and D. subobscura [T. castaneum, adults of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), adults of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and adults and nymphs of Acarus siro L. (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) [Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel and Miller (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) as potential vectors of cacao mild mosaic virus (CaMMV) [T. castaneum and Aspergilus flavus Link  in maize flour [The studies in this SI deal with various interesting aspects of research, i.e., identification of termite species in West Africa , charactulations , the conhididae) , recordihididae) , investiite loci , compariMiridae) , evaluatestidae) , investin Greece , validathilidae) , descriphilidae) , the genanalysis , utilizarididae) , investibobscura , a databbobscura , evaluatcaridae) , identif (CaMMV) , definin (CaMMV) , explora (CaMMV) , and exaze flour . Furtherze flour  and adapze flour .Insects), Natsumi Kanzak, Silvio Erler, Thomas W. Phillips, Tibor Magura, Marco Salvemini, and David Schlipalius for their critical decisions on certain manuscripts, the reviewers for the time they spent to carefully examine the manuscripts and make valuable suggestions, and the editorial team of Insects who processed manuscripts for the SI. My special thanks go to Barbara Wang, Assistant Editor of Insects, who exhaustively worked for several months with me to make this important SI come to fruition.Finally, I would like to thank all authors for their fine contributions, the Academic Editors of Insects Bessem Chouaia, Brian T. Forschler (Editor-in-Chief of


Molecular Oncology, but the comments also represent an objective view from an academic scientist, which could be applied to many areas of science.With your experiments and analyses completed, thoughts turn to writing up your work and submitting for publication. This cycle has not changed for decades, but in recent years there has been an exponential increase in the number of journal options in any given field. So, how do you choose the best journal for you? Terms such as subscription journal, hybrid journal, open access journal and society journal are ones that we all hear, but what does it all mean? Within this short commentary, I highlight several aspects of publishing that are worth considering when choosing which journal to submit your work. The perspectives are admittedly written from the office of i.e. by a scientist) or by an institution. This led to hierarchy in the accessibility of journals with some institutions being able to pay for the majority of available journals, whereas others were only able to acquire a few. This resulted in a situation where the dissemination of scientific discovery was not available to all and the assumption that important discoveries were only reported in the most widely purchased high‐profile journals. As we know, this is not true, with many discoveries that have led to Nobel prizes being published in journals that are not at the top of the ‘perceived’ pyramid of publishing. It was on this basis that the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment  was established to recognise published science, not based on where it is published, but simply on its merits. Many universities, research institutes and publishers around the world have agreed with this principle, and are now signatories of DORA.In many ways, the reason why we publish our work is sometimes lost in the need to publish to graduate, the requirement to fulfil objectives for current grants and the necessity to have publications for future grants. It must be remembered, however, that the founding principle of scientific publication is to tell the community about your recent discovery! Within this, we desire that as many people as possible read our work, who will then hopefully recognise its merits and use the findings to build the next stage of scientific endeavour. It is on this basis that the most recognised journals in science have gained their esteem as, in a time before the Internet, they were the most accessible and read. By association, scientists wanted to publish their work in these journals to gain the most exposure, and this led to competition for space and the ability of journals to select what they perceived to be the most exciting discoveries of the time. During this time, journals were purchased either individually  and other material is published behind a ‘pay wall’ for a lower fee, in some cases with the article becoming freely available after a period of time.https://www.coalition-s.org/) that aim at full and immediate open access of peer‐reviewed publications of all research funded by either public or private grants. However, as outlined above, open‐access publishing usually comes at an additional cost. As the funds of many laboratories and institutions are limited, avenues have been developed in many countries to deal with this additional financial toll. For example, in the case of the FEBS Press journal Molecular Oncology , the publisher Wiley have established transformational agreements with governing bodies in several countries https://www.wiley.com/network/archive/wiley-s-transformational-agreements-a-summary), so that open‐access fees are paid through the agreement rather than the scientific lab. This means that in some countries publishing ‘open access’ can be completely free of charge, at least from the lab's perspective. This does not, however, apply to all countries and so some journals, including all those published by FEBS Press (https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/for-authors/waivers-and-discounts.html), allow authors from a list of developing countries to apply for publication fee waivers.Most scientists and funding bodies consider that the open‐access route is the best option for the global dissemination and recognition of their work. This is additionally supported by global and European initiatives like Plan S , which provides funds for meetings, lab exchanges, fellowships and other initiatives that promote the careers of young biomedical scientists. So, the question when choosing a journal to submit your paper to is often first based on the reputation and standing of the journal, but it should then also come down to whether you feel you really need to send your work to a non‐society journal or whether a society journal may be an equal, or even a better option. Even when removing my admitted bias as Editor‐in‐Chief of Molecular Oncology, it would seem that publishing in a society journal should always be a consideration.Having established that certain aspects of publishing come at a cost, but are worthy, is this the whole story for those publication fees? Well, of course not! Publishing is a business and as with all businesses, there needs to be profit. So, the question then is, where does this profit go? With many journals, this goes to the investors and/or shareholders of the journal or the journal’s parental publishing company. As a pushback to this situation, many scientific organisations or foundations decided to establish their own journals, termed ‘Society Journals’, where the profits from publishing go back into the associated organisation or community that they serve. For example, in the case of Molecular Oncology as an example, also publish articles relating to science policy. To do this, we have a long‐standing connection with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences (EACS) and have published several articles reporting the latest developments at EACS and how these affect the cancer community in Europe and beyond. More recently, we have also partnered with the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR) to reciprocally share the dissemination of our initiatives and events. As part of this, if you are member of EACR (www.eacr.org), Molecular Oncology are also offering a 10% discount in publication fees! Moreover, this saving in publication fees is greater than the cost of joining EACR for those who are not already members!It might be assumed that all we need to consider when choosing a journal in which to publish is the exposure gained, the fee, the choice of open access and whether it is a society journal Fig. . HoweverMolecular Oncology and I hope that if you work in any aspect of cancer research from lab to clinic, you will consider submitting your next manuscript to Molecular Oncology!In summary, I hope that this Editorial helps to navigate the current, often bewildering, choices in science publishing and will guide authors towards the conscious decision on where to submit their manuscripts. Lastly, the team at