As a follow up to OpenCon 2014, International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) students organized a 3 day workshop Open Access, Open Education Resources and Open Data in Kampala from 15-18 December 2014. One of the aims of the workshop was to engage the Open Access movement in Uganda which encompasses the scientific community, librarians, academia, researchers and students. The IFMSA students held the workshop with the support of: Consortium for Uganda University Libraries (CUUL), The Right to Research Coalition, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), Makerere University, International Health Sciences University (IHSU), Pan African Medical Journal (PAMJ) and the Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD). All these organizations are based or have offices in Kampala. The event culminated in a meeting with the Science and Technology Committee of Parliament of Uganda in order to receive the support of the Ugandan Members of Parliament and to make a concrete change for Open Access in the country. Librarians, academia and researchers in Uganda have shown a continuous and resolute interest in the Open Access movement. Open Access journal publishing initiatives and support to Open Access repositories can prove it. The Makerere University Library, for example, was the first library in Uganda to set up an institutional repository called the Uganda Scholarly Digital Library (USDL). Launched as a science repository but later changed to cover other disciplines, USDL has a total of 1,600 full text articles, reports, posters, and other scholarly materials [Next Generation of Medical Researchers workshops’. The previous two were pre- General Assembly workshops focusing on Research Integrity. To follow up with those pre-GAs, more workshops have been planned for the regional meeting as well and As Africa was the first region to host the meeting, we decided to focus on: a core part of research data; on educational resources fundamental for students and researchers; and, on research outputs and how to share them. Our main aim is to build capacities to launch and sustain Open Access,  and OD (Open Data) activities, projects and policies in the region, especially at national and local level. For this reason we decided to create a network in Uganda with local Universities and personalities based in the capital of Uganda, Kampala. The 10th African Regional Meeting was held in Kampala, Uganda under the theme Human Resources for Health: A foundation for Universal Health Coverage and was organized by the Federation of Uganda Medical Students Association (FUMSA). We received support from: Consortium for Uganda University Libraries (CUUL), The Right to Research Coalition [The IFMSA participated in the OpenCon 2014 from 15-17 November 2014 in Washington DC, and the representatives  came back with lot of enthusiasm and a willingness to share their knowledge and new ideas with the medical students. In order to follow up with the OpenCon 2014 a pre Africa Regional Meeting Open Access, Open Education Resources and Open Data was held in Kampala, Uganda from 15-18 December 2014. This pre- ARM workshop was organized within the series of ‘The students had the chance to meet and be trained by University Librarians from the International Health Sciences University and Makerere University Business School. The librarians are: Florence Mirembe who is also the Chairperson of the Consortium of Uganda University Libraries (CUUL) which promotes access to e-resources to support education and research within universities and other research institutions, and she is also the EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries) country coordinator; Alison Kinengyere who is also the outgoing president of Association of African Health Librarians-Uganda Chapter and Hassan Segooba who is a librarian at the Makerere University Business School Library. In this way medical students can join their effort to promote Open Access. The participants also had the chance to get also the perspective of a medical journal editor thanks to the participation of Allan Mwesiga from the Editorial Office of the Pan African Medical Journal who shared the experience and achievements of an African Medical Journal as an Open Access journal. Under the guidance of Nsereko Ibrahim from the Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) participants learned more on promoting Open Access and on how to organize initiatives in Uganda, but also in other Universities with A case for CC licensing opportunities in Uganda.Through this event facilitated by Meggie, Agostinho and Mohamed, the students developed critical skills as well as advocacy and practical skills and had the opportunity to share their backgrounds, their project, how they have been involved in OA, OER and OD and analyse examples of successful projects with a view to planning on how to improve them or how to adapt them to their backgrounds. They are now looking forward to spreading awareness about Open Access. The event culminated in a meeting with the Science and Technology Committee of Parliament of Uganda, where the workshop participants presented a statement. There will be a follow up on this with the Ugandan Members of Parliament in order to receive their support and to make a concrete change in the country.


To determine the rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal for all oral presentations made at the Canadian Society for Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery’s Annual Meetings from 2006–2010.All abstracts were searched by keywords and authors’ names in Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar. Authors of presented abstracts not found to be published were contacted directly for further information.50.5% of presented abstracts (n = 198) were subsequently published with an average time to publication of 21 months. For those abstracts found not to be published 74.6% (n = 167) of authors responded with further information about their research, 66% (n = 89) of abstracts with author response that were not published were never submitted for publication. Authors’ main reasons for not publishing were that the research was still in process  or that a resident or fellow working on the project “had moved on” .The publication rate for the Canadian Society for Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery’s Annual Meetings from 2006–2010 is within the range reported by other conferences and specifically other Canadian conferences in different specialties; however, roughly half of presentations went on to be published. The main barrier to publication was bringing projects to the submission stage and not rejection by journals. Resources such as more time for research or personnel to coordinate projects may result in a greater rate of project completion. The presentation of research findings at academic meetings is an important form of dissemination. Academic meetings and particularly those that cater to the medical profession must be held to a high standard as research presented may affect the future practice of clinicians in attendance. One of the accepted measures of quality is the ability of presenters to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals; therefore, previous work has been performed to determine publication rates from various academic meetings. Research from around the world and across medical disciplines has reported a range of publication rates from 27-81%, influenced by whether the presentation was a poster or from the podium, the specialty of the research and the study design .The mean time from presentation to publication has been reported to range from 15.8-25.3 months; however, a study on the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and the American Pediatric Surgery Association found that 93% of abstracts were published within 1-year of presentation -13.Previously described justification for not publishing include “not seeing publication as a priority,” “not having enough time” and rejection ,14. CanaThe publication rate of presented abstracts at the largest meeting of Otolaryngologists in Canada, the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology- Head Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS), has not previously been reviewed. Quality assurance of this nature is essential to ensuring the value of presentations at an academic meeting. This review will determine the rate of publication for all abstracts presented in oral form at the CSO-HNS Annual Meetings from 2006–2010.All abstracts published in the CSO-HNS scientific programs for the Annual Meetings from 2006–2010 under the heading “Paper Session” were retrospectively reviewed for publication. We did not include abstracts from the Poliquin Resident’s competition as full manuscripts are submitted in advance for each competitor’s presentation. The initial review was accomplished by searching key words and all authors’ names from each abstract in PubMed and then in Google Scholar, using the full title from each abstract. A presentation abstract was considered published if there was an article identified in a peer-reviewed journal that matched the subject matter, methods, and at least two of the authors listed in the scientific program. This allowed for the possibility of modifications to the study from the time of presentation to the time of publication. Information about each abstract’s sub-specialty and city of origin was obtained from the corresponding meeting’s scientific program.For abstracts where no publications were identified, the lead authors were contacted to provide the status of their research. If the presented research was confirmed as never published, authors were asked to provide reasons for not publishing. If the contacted author was able to produce evidence of publication, the presented abstract was considered published for our analysis.During the 2006–2010 Annual Meetings for the CSO-HNS 392 abstracts were presented as a part of “Paper Sessions” with an increase in number of presentations by year , Toronto, ON (63) and London, ON (42). The best publication rate of the top seven contributing cities was from London, Ontario (73.8%) and the lowest from Ottawa, Ontario (32%).2 test). Pediatric presentations had the lowest publication rate at 41.2% . The fewest abstracts were submitted under the sub-specialty “Laryngology” as it was not a listed sub-specialty until the 2010 meeting and therefore not included in the determination of the highest publication rate  and had the highest publication rate 62.8%). “Facial Plastic Surgery” was the next most presented sub-specialty and had a publication rate (51.2%), this was not found to be significantly different from Head and Neck  of these abstracts  and the Laryngoscope . Other journals included JAMA Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (formerly Archives in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) , Head and Neck  and the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy .This study determined the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Meetings of the CSO-HNS from 2006–2010 to be 50.5%. This rate is within the range previously reported by other medical disciplines and it is within the range (45%-65%) of other Canadian health-related meetings ,13,15. TThe sub-specialty of “Head and Neck” had the greatest number of submissions and one of the highest publication rates. Pediatric presentations had the lowest rate of publication, however, this category did include the third lowest number of presentations over these five years. The low publication rate may be due to a lack of time and personnel working in this area. Interestingly, a similar study (American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery) found that pediatric otolaryngology had the highest rate of publication for their meeting .Previous publication reviews found that common barriers to publishing were “not enough time for research” or “research is not a high priority” ,20. ThisThe second most common reason for un-submitted work (26%) was attributed to a resident or fellow moving on from the project. This is possibly due to the transitional nature of these positions; research is often started and not completed to publication. Many residency programs require that residents present research at a conference or research day, but may not emphasize publication. This difficulty has been recognized in Canadian pharmacy residents, where the rate of manuscript publication for projects started in this program was 21% .The present study was limited in its confirmation of publication as not all journals are included in the Medline database and on Google Scholar. Contacting the presenters of research believed to have not been published added accuracy to our results as authors could provide a citation if their research had in fact been published. Once evidence of publication was given the article was assumed to contain similar research data to what was originally presented. A greater number of responses from researchers about why their work was not submitted for publication would have added to the validity of our survey results.Studies of this nature often highlight the importance of ensuring quality in academic meetings. By looking further into the reasons that authors did not publish it is evident that a lack of time or a resident or fellow’s participation in research may result in projects not being completed to publication; however, it can be asserted that certain projects would not be started if it were not for the resident or fellow’s role. It is important that attendees of the CSO-HNS Annual Meetings understand that approximately one half of the presented abstracts do not regularly result in publication. This awareness alone may help researchers better plan for research projects and place a higher emphasis on encouraging residents or fellows to complete research projects to publication.


Despite the well-known maxim "publish or perish" among academicians, productivity remains low in Nigeria. There are barriers to academic writing which must be identified and addressed. Even after addressing those barriers, authors are faced with another dilemma-where to publish. It was the concern of the authors to evaluate perceived barriers to academic writing and the determinants of journal choice among Nigerian academics. They also attempted to evaluate the determinants of journal choice and perceived barriers to academic writing among Nigerian academicians. Respondents were academicians used in the context of this study to mean anyone involved in academic writing. Such persons must have written and published at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in the preceding year to be included in the survey. An online-based self-administered questionnaire.An online structured and self-administered questionnaire-based cross sectional survey of Nigerian medical academicians was conducted over a period of one year using a Google-powered questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed the determinants of journal choice, perceived barriers to publications, number of publications in the preceding year as a measure of academic productivity and the highest publication fee authors were willing to pay.Of the over 500 email request sent, a total of 200 academicians responded (response rate of 40%). The male and female distribution was 120 and 80 respectively. The highest number of respondents were lecturer 1 and senior lecturers (or junior faculty) (69.5%) however the senior faculty had the higher number of publications in the preceding year. Indexing (35.5%) was the most important determinant of journal choice whilst ease of submission (2.1%) was the least. Unfriendly environment (46%) was the most perceived barrier to publication. Though, majority (88.5%) of the respondents were willing to pay up $300 as publication fees, twice as many junior faculty members (28%) were willing to pay more than $300 as publication fee when compared with professors (12.5%). About 140 of the respondents (70%) were doctors/dentists.In this study, the major determinant of journal choice among Nigerian medics is journal indexing and unfriendly environment appears to be the major perceived barrier to publication. Encouraging a friendly and conducive environment in the universities will impact positively in academic productivity amongst Nigerian faulty members. Just as with any topic in the realm of academia, the subject of the true measure of academic productivity has remained an enigma. The junior faculty grapples with the realization that he must dance to the same unwanted tune-"publish or perish" that he wishes was non-existent, to achieve his dreams of becoming a celebrated academic. The measure of productivity - the number and quality of publications-remains the focus despite obvious challenges. While the junior faculty brace up to a forced love of the unpleasant tune, the older respected faculty might look back with hindsight agreeing with Brew , that thResearch design: this was an online cross-sectional survey of academics in Nigeria using an online Google-powered questionnaire.Sampling: the sampling method adopted was non-random. Emails of academic staff from all available sources were entered into an online survey system. The respondents cut across academicians of various disciplines. It was online-based, hence there were no institutional boundaries. The online questionnaire was designed such that only respondents who had published at least one paper in the preceding 12 months were allowed to complete the survey.Research participants: participants consisted of 200 academicians who gave consent to participate in an online survey over an eleven month period spanning November 2013 through October 2014. The response rate was low and the 200 participants who eventually responded constituted roughly 40% of the total number of emails sent out through Google drive. Academics were regarded as anyone involved in peer-reviewed academic writing irrespective of their institutional affiliation. Biographic data and responses to various variables were obtained through an online questionnaire preceded by an explanation of the purpose and request for consent to participate. The online protocol sought to obtain responses to various questions relating to sex, age-group, academic level, sponsorship, what participants were willing to pay for publications, perceived barriers to publications. Most questions were closed interspersed with a few open-ended questions as shown in Appendix 1.Data analysis: data entry and analysis were performed with the PASW (SPSS) statistical software with univariate analysis of frequencies. Means and standard deviations were excluded since most data though numeric in nature were grouped at the point of data collection and therefore treated as categorical variables. The main dependent (outcome) measures were perceived barriers to publication, number of peer-reviewed publications in the previous 12 months and maximum amounts participants were willing to pay as article processing fees. These influences of explanatory (independent) variables on the main outcome measures were evaluated using chi-square statistics at 95% confidence level which generated respective p-values. P-values of ≤0.05 were therefore regarded as being statistically significant.Of the 200 consenting participants , 164 worked in Universities while 36 worked in hospitals. Only 10 academics (5%) always enjoyed sponsorship of their research work and publication, 53 (26.5%) admitted getting sponsored some of the time while most respondents (68.5%) never received sponsorship for their work.The most important barrier  was an "unfriendly environment" which was an un-qualified closed response whereas open answers captured under "others" included no time, rejection at first instance, slow review, and high publication costs as responded to by 65 (32.5%) of the respondents. Academic levels had no impact on perceived barriers to publication (p = 0.313). There were strong sex differences (p = 0.001) in perceived barriers to publications. More than twice as many males as females cited lack of interest while about twice as many females than males felt hindered by "other factors" which consisted of time constraints, lack of mentoring, funds and delayed reviews . Surpris2= 1.565, df = 4, p-value = 0.815.Overall, indexing  was the most important determinant of journal choice followed by impact factor. Previous experience with the editor and the ease of submission were of least importance   but the Only 15 respondents (7.5%) had at least 10 publications to their credit in the preceding 12 months or at least 0.83 publications per month while a vast majority barely managed 1-3 publications in the preceding 12 months or 0.083-0.250 publications per month. Productivity levels were independent of sex (p = 0.439) and receipt of sponsorship (0.1081). Academic productivity was however much higher among the senior faculty because a higher proportion of professors had published at least 7 papers in the preceding 12 months compared with senior lecturers (27.5% vs 17.6%) or (1.5:1). The proportion of professors who had published at least 7 papers in the preceding 12 months was four times higher than the proportion of lecturers 1 and below (27.5% vs 6.8%) or 4:1 (p = 0.0004) . The staMost  of the authors in this study were willing to pay up to $300 as publication fees irrespective of sex (p = 0.09) and receipt of sponsorship (p= 0.90). Twice as many junior faculty members were willing to pay more than $300 publication compared with professors . The difference however failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.1268 (Fisher's Exact)). All Chi-square calculations satisfied Cochran's criteria that none of the cells have expected values < 5, No cells have expected values < 1. Only significant tables are shown due to space constraints.Barriers are natural to any human endeavour. Academicians working in a resource-starved environment like Nigeria are not spared from barriers neither are they immune to them. Since this was a simple study with closed mostly "yes", "no" patterned answers, it was not possible to evaluate secondary relationships between different barriers and considerations. For instance, while the study attempted to understand barriers, it only sought to evaluate the "greatest" barrier only rather than evaluate the detailed relationships between the various barriers-for instance evaluating if an author would be more concerned for open access or for impact factor if cost wasn't an issue. It is indeed possible that open access would be the next "big thing" for an author if he had the required funding. For other authors, journal prestige might take the front stage if indexing is taken care of. The authors also gave no option of zero cost to authors who only publish in free journals! Unfortunately, the current study was not powered to make such detailed, multi-level questioning. Admittedly, this design was a bit unfair to the respondents but it provides some baseline data upon which future studies can be built. Now, sponsorship is one big issue in Nigeria and has been recognized as a barrier to productivity and research output . While sLimitation: about 140 of the respondents (70%) were doctors/dentists while about 30% were non-medics. The findings should be interpreted with this in mind.In a recent report, Wang and Shapira  showed tThe major determinants of journal choice among Nigerian academicians appear to be indexing and impact factor and most Nigerian academics are unwilling to pay more than $300 as article publication fees. More importantly, the fact that only 5% of academics got sponsored all of the time is embarrassing for a country that prides herself as the giant of Africa. The authors would therefore suggest that the Nigerian government should be more pragmatic in restoring the glory of the ivory towers through the creation of a "friendly" and conducive environment that would naturally encourage greater research productivity. Within the limits of the strength of the small sample studied here, it looks like "dumping" money in the universities for research without addressing deep-seated barriers will make the dream of greater productivity a mere mirage.


Without animals this planet would be a very different place, indeed many of the remaining life forms could not exist. As animals ourselves we are linked to a vast network of moving, living, reproducing organisms that form an essential part of the various ecosystems that are themselves competing for survival. By virtue of our large cognitive capacity and complex societal living structures, we manage and influence many of these ecosystems, in the most extreme way by keeping animals captive for our own benefit. For these captive animals we manage their health, nutrition, reproduction and even their genetic composition; for wild animals we often have major influences on the habitat, and even the animals themselves, that affect their viability. This intricate interdependence of humans on other animals is increasingly difficult to sustain in the face of a growing human population, diminishing natural resources, accelerating changes in climate and rapidly evolving societal standards. The continued existence of many animal species cannot be guaranteed, some systems of keeping captive animals are judged to be immoral, and even within widely accepted systems individual animals may be subjected to suffering. Captive animals are suspected of widespread transmission of diseases, contributing to climate change and degradation of the landscape. Changing dietary habits to include more animal products are placing livestock production systems under strain worldwide. Conversely, animals feed us, clothe us, protect us, amuse us, some probably even reciprocate the love that we give to them, and many people in developing countries are reliant on their livestock. Evaluating animals' place in the world today is even more essential than ever before.Animals, will provide a forum for all to become rapidly familiar with the latest scientific research on animals and their place in different ecosystems. The research may be fundamental or applied, and could use a range of techniques from molecular to the study of animal systems. Rapid review and publication will enable scientists to act much more quickly to address the concerns outlined above. Long publishing delays of more than one year that hinder your grant and job applications can be avoided by using this journal, which will publish papers as soon as the peer review process has been completed and editorial requirements met. Due to their widespread availability, open access journal articles are increasingly likely to be cited, and several of the established MDPI journals have already been awarded Impact Factors that are as high as many of the leading animal science journals. The page charges for Animals will be modest, in comparison with both other open access journals and the full cost of the research, and are waived for well-prepared contributions received in 2010 and 2011. For most publicly-funded research, open access is a right for the community members because the work has been funded, indirectly, from the taxes that they pay to the government. For the researcher, open access gives the opportunity to expose their work to a broader community than just their scientific peers, allowing them to gain from the vastly increased contact with those who will ultimately benefit from the research. The publisher MDPI has 14 years of open access publishing experience and, with its base in Switzerland, is able to offer a reliable and reputable publishing forum. This journal has an august body of Editors, with a wide range of experience that will allow them to accurately appraise publications in a wide range of animal topics.Resolving animal issues cannot just be by scientific endeavor, but requires strategic decisions to be made by the whole community. Providing information rapidly and to everyone is an essential part of empowering the community and its leaders to take the necessary decisions in an informed manner. This new journal, Animals it will be possible, and often desirable, to include video footage—for example, see the footage from a study of feeding behavior in the endangered mahogany glider as a In recent years, the range of topics covered in animal research has expanded considerably, from animal genetics, with its rapidly developing methodology and potential for change, to animal emotions, whose very existence used to be denied. In Another advantage of electronic publishing is that articles are not limited by length, and authors are encouraged to provide adequate detail to enable the study to be fully comprehended, and extended if necessary, and the results to be utilized in further studies, for example in meta-analyses. Notwithstanding this, authors are also encouraged to write succinctly and to provide a summary of their article in a form that is suitable for an open access forum.The journal will publish regular research papers, reviews of books and topical issues, communications, and short notes. Ideas for special issues are welcomed, for example from conferences addressing a topical animal theme. Researchers are invited to submit high quality, original articles and erudite reviews that will help us to improve our understanding of the place of animals on our planet, and ultimately to benefit the lives of animals, and ourselves.


Acta Crystallographica Section E in June heralded its transformation from Structure Reports Online to Crystallographic Communications and saw the publication of the first papers in the new Research Communication format designed to bring out the science behind the structure determination. Reports are no longer limited to a short description of a single structure and figures are no longer relegated to the Supporting information. We are delighted to see that an increasing number of authors are choosing to publish their work as a Research Communication, with the numbers of these articles increasing every month. The November issue includes the one hundredth paper to be published in this format, so what better time to celebrate the great breadth in the range and scope of the Research Communications published so far?The relaunch of Research Communication rather than publishing a series of short structural reports. We are pleased to see that papers reporting two structures are a now regular feature and one three-structure paper has been published. Authors have made the most of the opportunity to include extra tables and figures in the published paper to illustrate their results and enhance the discussion of the underlying science.Authors are positively encouraged to report and discuss related structures in a single Kα or Cu Kα radiation, some studies have benefited from synchrotron and even neutron time-of-flight measurements.We are pleased to see that the variety of compounds covered is vast, and includes a fullerene, a potential secondary explosive, a herbicide, MOF’s, a two-dimensional grid-type structure, a layered coordination polymer, a four-layered [3.3]pyridinophane, an anti-HIV agent, a new solid form of the drug seratrodast, a helicene, isotypic structures, polymorphs and caged compounds to name but a few. While the majority of crystals have been measured with Mo These full papers have discussed some very interesting science, the findings of the studies including, amongst others, an example of the importance of freely refining the positions of the amino-group H atoms, the influence of solvent upon the stoichiometry of the formed salt, relative substituent orientation, extension of the coordination chemistry of a certain ligand type farther towards the early transition metals, and the influence of the molecular shape on the hydrogen-bonding pattern. Research Communications. In July, the cover image was taken from the first Research Communication ever to be published, which reports alkyne dicobalt clusters featuring asymmetric or symmetric alkynes, classic tetrahedral C2Co2 cluster cores, with each carbon atom of the alkyne bridging two Co atoms, and highly distorted octahedral geometries. A two-dimensional grid-type structure with the organic guest molecules occupying the space between adjacent grid layers was the choice in August, whereas the molecular structure of 2,7-diethoxy-1,8-bis(4-nitrobenzoyl)naphthalene, which possesses crystallographically imposed twofold symmetry and whose crystal packing is characterized by C—H⋯O=C and C—H⋯O=N hydrogen bonds appeared in September. The October cover featured two molybdenum(II) cyclopentadienyl complexes in which the steric demands of the different phosphine ligands have a minor effect on bond lengths and angles within the complex molecule whereas the crystal packing in the two structures is markedly different, with the acetyl oxygen atom playing a crucial role as an acceptor of non-classical C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds. This month, the choice relates to the interesting chemistry and crystallography of N-arylhydroxylamines, where four independent molecules are linked via O—H⋯N and N—H⋯N hydrogen bonds to form a tetramer-like unit. Each month a Section Editor has the pleasure of choosing the structure for the cover. The cover choices reflect the broad range of topics you will find among the publCIF software to write and edit their papers using a word-processing environment. publCIF takes a crystallographic information file (CIF) and prepares a formatted paper (preprint) in the Research Communication style. The CIF and the preprint are presented side-by-side and can both be edited – changes made to one are applied to the other as you type. publCIF also includes many useful editorial tools to help you write your paper. It can be used to add data items required for publication, prepare standard and customized geometry tables, check your CIF for both syntax and completeness, print or export a preprint of your paper, check the references and more. Using publCIF, a Research Communication can be produced with just a little extra effort. Be sure to use the latest version of publCIF, which is available to download free of charge from http://publcif.iucr.org.We would like to see even more of our authors old and new submit to the journal in this format. Our editors and many of our authors already take advantage of the IUCr’s Research Communication format is down to our dedicated team of Co-editors who are doing an excellent job in advising authors how to promote their science. On behalf of the Section Editors of Acta E, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for helping make Acta Crystallographica Section E the obvious choice for disseminating the results of the excellent crystallography that is being carried out by our authors worldwide.A large part of the success of the new


Over the past few years, there has been mounting concern that much of what is perceived as ‘cutting-edge’ research in the biological sciences cannot readily be reproduced or translated into new avenues for further development –3. One cBy favoring the authors of such papers in the competition for jobs, funding and promotions, the scientific community promotes a culture in which any research paper that is not published in one of these most desirable venues can be viewed as representing lower impact science. Due to this skewed system of values, papers published in high impact venues are sometimes judged on the perceived quality of the journal rather than their own individual merits. In response to such pressures, many scientists have been willing to jump through increasing numbers of hoops to publish in journals with exceptionally high impact factors.Nucleic Acids Research, motivated by the belief that excellent science should be recognized and rewarded regardless of the journal in which it is published, have chosen to highlight and actively promote ‘Breakthrough’ Articles as a regular feature of the journal. We hope that this new initiative to recognize and reward exceptional papers will further enhance the journal's standing among researchers.The root of this problem does not lie solely with a handful of highly prestigious journals and their editors. Instead, the scientific community as a whole is to blame for fostering and acting on the assumption that a small group of publications hold a monopoly on the most outstanding of all science. The editors and staff of A key goal in our decision to recognize ‘Breakthrough’ articles is to encourage investigators to publish their very best work in NAR. We are investing considerable effort into identifying and promoting studies that solve a long-standing problem in their field or provide exceptional new insight that will motivate and guide new research opportunities and directions. The scale of the research, as well the current attention being given to its corresponding field, is secondary to whether the study represents a true breakthrough in understanding.Despite our appreciation of the dangers of relying too heavily upon journal impact factors as a substitute for systematic examination of the actual impact of a scientist's research or a paper's fundamental contribution to knowledge and understanding, we are nonetheless proud that NAR's own impact factor has risen substantially in recent years. We attribute the increasing number of citations per paper published in the journal, at least in part, to our long history of innovation in scientific publishing. In the 1970's, NAR was one of the first journals to speed the appearance of articles by having authors submit camera-ready manuscripts. In the 1990's, the journal centralized important research resources in its annual Database and Webserver issues, and in 2005 NAR and Oxford University Press joined the earliest vanguard of Open Access publishing by introducing completely free and unrestricted access to our content. We now continue this tradition of innovation with our commitment to identifying and actively nurturing Breakthrough science.Instead of relying on editors to identify potentially high impact articles, we have instituted a “bottom-up” strategy in which our Breakthrough articles are usually first identified by peer reviewers. These are the scientists who are most likely to have the expertise to recognize a potential jewel in the form of a well defined and carefully conducted study and not be overly impressed by the presentation of a sweeping range of experiments. We have found that by carefully explaining our view on what constitutes truly exceptional research, our reviewers can accurately assess whether any study, regardless of size and scope, reports a true breakthrough within their field.An author can also suggest that an article might be appropriate as a “Breakthrough” paper prior to or during the initial submission. This suggestion does not affect the level of scrutiny the paper receives, but can ensure that an editorial board member is consulted early in the process and thereby allows a decision to be made more quickly.Once a potential Breakthrough paper has been identified during peer review, we solicit a second level of review from members of our editorial board and outside experts. After these rounds of peer evaluation, senior and executive editors of NAR examine the manuscript before coming to a final decision. Manuscripts that pass this editorial scrutiny are then edited and suggestions are made to improve their accessibility to a broad audience. NAR prides itself on rapid deliberations, and the average time from submission to first decision is 21 days. The time required for the multiple rounds of evaluation for Breakthrough articles is seldom more than a few days.The broad research expertise within the NAR family of editors and editorial board members  helps ensure that publication of outstanding research will not be blocked or delayed as the result of bias. Another significant advantage is that NAR has no page limits, allowing full disclosure of important data within the main text and ample space for thoughtful discussion of results. Finally, by accepting that a breakthrough can often be found within a focused but technically outstanding study, we resist the temptation to demand additional experiments and broadened scope beyond what is necessary or advisable.Beyond the initial designation of a study as a ‘Breakthrough’, we further promote the outstanding science in these studies through ‘NAR Breakthrough Paper Alerts’. These documents, which are circulated to the organizers and writers of numerous online and printed research abstract services and topical science magazines, describe the exact manner in which the study represents a breakthrough, as well as the contribution that the authors, their institution and their funding agencies have made to the work.In a little over a year NAR has already published nineteen Breakthrough articles. We hope that our decision to recognize and reward exceptional papers will prove useful for a broad audience, ranging from research experts in the specific discipline, to students looking for a compelling paper that will withstand the scrutiny of the harshest journal club. While our initiative will not single-handedly solve the problem of identifying high quality scholarship independent of the journal in which it is published, we hope it will be one of many productive responses from the scientific community that help bring the focus back towards science with real and lasting value.


The introduction of open access has greatly influenced the way researchers publish their results and consult those of their colleagues. Basically two routes have been designed for open access. By using open-access repositories, the green route makes published articles and results freely available on the internet, typically after permission and an embargo period decided by the journal publisher. In most cases this archiving is done by institutions and universities. In the second so-called gold route, authors publish in an open-access journal. Two types exist here, a fully open-access journal or a hydrid journal containing conventional and open-access articles, but for both types a publication fee is charged in most cases. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), an online directory that indexes and provides access to open-access journals, currently contains about 9900 journal titles. Acta Crystallographica Section E. This choice has proven to be very successful, resulting in the annual publication of about 4000 fully open-access papers. The recently announced transformation of Acta Crystallographica Section E: Structure Reports Online to Crystallographic Communications and the introduction of two new article types (longer Research Communications and short-format Data Reports) will not however change the open-access policy. The IUCr Executive Committee decided during its meeting in Leuven in August 2006 to go for the true open-access model in the case of For researchers the most important advantages of open access are the increased visibility and accessibility of their data and results. Usage and access to research literature becomes free and much easier, which is certainly further enhanced by the worldwide development of the internet. In times when research institutes and universities – and not only in lower-income countries – can allocate less resources for subscriptions to international journals, this is an important benefit for all researchers. As a consequence, open-access articles are more widely read, cited sooner and achieve higher citation rates. The shift of traditional publishing to open access also forces publishers to adopt new business models. The income from traditional subscriptions to journals or pay-per-view services for individual articles is gradually being replaced by payment of a processing fee by the authors or their institutions and funding agencies. Especially during the transition period, this causes the impression that one is paying double. Policy makers can play an important role here to shorten this transition period and to resolve the ambiguity. Nowadays many universities argue the benefits of open access for their researchers and encourage them to publish in open-access journals, which may help to fulfil their mission of creating and disseminating knowledge. The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has a specific roadmap towards open access to assist LERU members and other European universities who wish to facilitate open access. Research funding agencies also recommend open-access publishing as a way to ensure the maximal impact of their support. Open access is mandatory for all research publications that result from projects funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 programme; this has a seven-year budget of nearly EUR 80 billion and also includes reimbursement of author processing charges. Acta Cryst. E looks forward to receiving submissions in the new Research Communications and Data Reports formats from the crystallographic community. By offering gold-route open access for a very modest open-access fee, the IUCr hopes to serve the crystallographic community and related fields. By disseminating your high-quality data and reporting your scientific findings, we hope to further increase the visibility and impact of our crystallographic research. Open access is good for all of us!The Editorial Board of


Basic and Clinical Andrology (BaCA) is a new scientific open access, international peer-reviewed journal covering all aspects of male reproductive and sexual health. BaCA has its roots in the journal formerly entitled Andrologie (Springer), the official journal of the French speaking Society of Andrology (SALF) for the past 25 years. BaCA is an evolution of this journal, adding an international dimension (publishing in English language) and is now the official journal of the SALF.Basic and Clinical Andrology aims to bring to light the various clinical advancements and research developments attained in andrology around the world and thus help the field move forward. BaCA publishes many article types [le types  in many The field of andrology cannot be simply reduced to spermatogenesis or spermatozoa, erection or erectile dysfunction. It also covers the development and maintenance of tissues, structures and functions at the molecular, cellular, tissue, organism levels to ensure male reproductive efficiency. As such, andrology should then be considered important enough in human life for knowledge not to be restricted to a small community.Basic and Clinical Andrology is a window onto the andrological world, with the potential to reach a much larger set of readers than any subscription-based journal, in print and online format. This ensures that author’s work will be disseminated to the widest possible audience and, hopefully, will offer better indexing opportunities [As sexuality and genital health, as well as male fertility and contraception, are important parts of individual well being, accessibility to knowledge in andrology is required for any scientific or medical teams working in this area. In this way, an open access journal such as tunities , 3.Andrologie and Springer, the next logical step was to choose BioMed Central, which offers an open access publishing model on an online platform. Since January 2013, Basic and Clinical Andrology has received a growing number of manuscripts. The first three accepted articles are published today to mark the launch of the journal. However, we urge you to keep an eye on BaCA as there is more to come. In addition, you have the possibility to sign up for article alerts to be notified of the latest content.After a fruitful 4-year collaboration between The open access publishing model , 5 makesThe traditional business model for scientific publishers relies on restricting access to published research, in order to recoup the costs of the publication process. This restriction of access to published research prevents full use of the results of this research, and is contrary to the interests of authors, funders and the scientific community as a whole . The traIn contrast, BioMed Central’s open access publishing model treats publication as the last phase of the research process. Article-processing charges (APCs) cover the cost of the publication process to allow free and immediate access to the research articles. APCs ensure transparency and allow publishers to compete to provide the best service at the best price. By coupling the cost of publication to research budgets, APCs ensure that the journal publishing system can scale to cope with an ever-increasing volume of research. The APC is a flat fee; there are no additional charges for colour figures, movies and large datasets.BaCA editorial office are subject to a fair peer-review process involving at least two reviewers selected from the international community with the help of a respectable and voluntary Editorial Board [All manuscripts received by al Board . This pe


There is an error in the original manuscript under the Section “Early Replication”. The number of days of reduced hospitalization should be 0.8, not 8 as originally published.The author receives royalties from Stanford University and Bull Publishing.This paper is included in the Research Topic, “Evidence-Based Programming for Older Adults.” This Research Topic received partial funding from multiple government and private organizations/agencies; however, the views, findings, and conclusions in these articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of these organizations/agencies. All papers published in the Research Topic received peer review from members of the Frontiers in Public Health  panel of Review Editors. Because this Research Topic represents work closely associated with a nationwide evidence-based movement in the US, many of the authors and/or Review Editors may have worked together previously in some fashion. Review Editors were purposively selected based on their expertise with evaluation and/or evidence-based programming for older adults. Review Editors were independent of named authors on any given article published in this volume.


Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of “predatory” online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined “predatory journal.” A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents  agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they “didn’t know” how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term “predatory journal”; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science “sting” article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall’s list. Most  definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work. Publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals is the cornerstone of academic assessment and the gold standard for communication of research findings. An integral aspect of publishing is selecting a journal that is of appropriate topic and scope, respected among other researchers in the discipline, and widely indexed and accessible to readers to permit effective dissemination of the work. Open-access journals have expanded enormously in number and scope during the past 20 years to attract authors keen to give their work prompt and unfettered access , 2. ProlThe term “predatory” journals is not without controversy, in part because online journals range widely in quality and vary in the scientific credentials of the editorial staff, rigor of peer review, types of articles published, policies of the publisher, and quality of the work and the writing. Some journals may reflect a blend of legitimate and illegitimate practices that are difficult to discern or impossible to classify. Authors, especially those with little experience, may find evaluating the quality of journals difficult. In cultures and countries without a robust research infrastructure, the attraction of successful publication in an open-access journal may obscure the need to investigate the legitimacy of a journal. A recent study found that authors who publish in predatory journals have limited publishing experience and often are located in developing countries . HoweverScience magazine in 2013 , for which respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement on a Likert-like scale. We also asked four Yes/No questions on whether the respondent was aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),Science  about thThe survey was distributed on paper as part of scientific writing workshops or courses given by one or both of the authors during the 1-year period from November 2013 to October 2014. Formats and venues included a 1-day workshop at the annual meeting of the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) in Montreal, Canada (November 2013); a 1-day workshop at the UCD School of Veterinary Medicine (December 2013); a 1-unit graduate course at the UCD School of Veterinary Medicine (January 2014 and April 2014); a seminar series at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) School of Veterinary Medicine; a 2-h seminar at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health (March 2014); a 1-day workshop at the UCD School of Medicine, Clinical and Translational Science Center (August 2014); and a 1-day workshop at a Faculty (School) of Veterinary Medicine in southern Europe (Eur-SVM) (September 2014). Respondents attending the ASVCP workshop came from a variety of countries . At all venues, the survey was distributed and completed prior to presentation or discussion of journal types and selection. Participants were informed that the survey was anonymous, its completion was optional, and results would be shared and used to guide and improve the content of future workshops and courses. When administered in a graduate course, students were told that completion of the survey had no bearing on their grade in the course. Respondents were given ~15 min to complete the survey, which was then collected.P < 0.05.Responses were numbered and results entered into an Excel spreadsheet . Results were summarized and compared on the basis of site , veterinary or medical audiences, and role  using Chi square analysis . Differences were considered statistically significant when 1 These criteria have been subject to considerable input and discussion and draw on best practices in scholarly publishing provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).Free-text definitions of “predatory journal” were grouped thematically using the general criteria published on Beall’s list for predatory journals.n = 5), interns (n = 3), staff (n = 3), and one each of a scientist, career development award recipient, DVM/PhD in private practice, veterinary student, medical student, fellow, and a prospective graduate student doing mentored research. Four participants did not state their role. Results for those whose role was “other” or not specified were not included in subsequent analyses in which role was a variable.A total of 145 participants completed the survey  indicated that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish Figure . Higher P = 0.0230); several respondents commented that it depended on the journal. More respondents from UCD  and Eur-SVM  compared with those from UW  (P = 0.046) agreed or strongly agreed that interested readers would have access to their article regardless of whether it was published in an open-access journal.More than half of graduate students  and postdocs  agreed or strongly agreed that open-access and subscription-based journals upheld similar ethical standards, whereas 52% (11/21) of faculty and 48% (13/27) of residents indicated that they did not know . Awareness did not differ significantly based on role.Thirty-four of 142 (23.9%) respondents were aware of the DOAJ; 7/143 (4.8%) were aware of Beall’s list, 33/143 (23.0%) were aware of the term “predatory journal”, and 24/142 16.9%) were aware of the .9% were Of the 145 respondents, 116 (80.0%) defined the term “predatory journal” Table . RespondBased on our survey results, many or most prospective authors in this cohort, consisting largely of trainees, were unaware of predatory journals or of potential differences among journal models that may be important when selecting a journal for publication. Educational goals that should be included when conducting workshops or mentoring novice authors in scientific writing are to: (1) increase awareness of predatory journals, (2) distinguish among legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, (3) understand the similarities and differences between open-access and subscription-based journals, (4) learn to evaluate journals and their processes, and (5) select the best journal for the scientific study. Our survey did not explicitly address respondent experience with publishing, an aspect that could be included in future surveys, and responses may have been influenced by lack of publishing experience, especially among Eur-SVM respondents who likely had the least prior experience. We should engage prospective authors in discussions about where to submit their work, but also include experienced faculty and other mentors in these discussions. Sensitivity to and awareness of cultural and geographic considerations for publication are important.1 Prospective authors should be aware of their existence, but also avail themselves of resources that provide information about these journals. Increased awareness of predatory journals and available resources is needed across countries, institutions, and individual roles; inexperienced authors and those in some geographic regions may be especially vulnerable owing to pressures to have a manuscript accepted, no matter the quality of the journal , so that the question about awareness of that article remained relevant. Eur-SVM respondents, who had no awareness of the Science article, comprised a small and homogeneous group of graduate (Master’s) students who had recently completed their studies in veterinary medicine and had the least experience in publishing compared with other groups; their workshop also was held later than other groups (farthest date from publication of the Science article) and they were geographically distant from the U.S., so media exposure to the Science article was likely less. For all respondents, few if any identified the criteria defined by Beall, and some completely misunderstood the term “predatory journal.” Even respondents who were aware of the DOAJ had little awareness of Beall’s list, which may have resulted from the ease of finding the DOAJ using the search term open-access journal.We intentionally limited the survey period to one year after publication of the Science article. Of course, even these resources do not guarantee identification of journals with legitimate practices; for example, in the published sting operation, journals that accepted the fictitious article included journals listed in the DOAJ and other indexes , our respondents did not differ in their opinions by role, but those from veterinary medicine had a much higher expectation of more frequent citation of an article published in an open-access journal than did respondents from medicine, and there were major differences of opinion based on site. The Taylor & Francis survey  found thn = 226, 4% of the total), which was large and multidisciplinary, although veterinary medicine was not mentioned , peer-review practices, quality of published articles, access and indexing, metrics and citations, costs, and, importantly, ethical practices. Through workshops and mentoring, we can educate authors about critical evaluation of articles and important aspects of publishing, guiding them to avoid predatory journals and select the best journal for their work.Frontiers in Veterinary Science; she was not involved in the peer review process or the decision to publish this manuscript.The survey and course materials in this study were developed without financial support. The authors were reimbursed for some travel expenses for two of the workshops. The workshop at UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine was supported by a grant from the Virginia Perry Wilson Endowment. The workshop at UC Davis School of Medicine was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number UL1 TR000002; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Mary Christopher coordinates the International Association of Veterinary Editors, which receives sponsorship from Wiley and Elsevier. Mary Christopher is the Field Chief Editor of


Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders (JCMD). The aim of the journal is to offer an open access forum for the publication of scientifically rigorous articles focusing on the natural history, etiology, evaluation and treatment of patients with a wide range of movement disorders [st century.We are proud to announce the launch of a new open access journal, entitled isorders . We are JCMD as a fully open access journal. At present, only one journal devoted to movement disorders (Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Disorders) offers an open access format. We believe that the open access format offers numerous advantages to traditional publication strategies. Articles will be published as soon as they are accepted, markedly decreasing the time for evaluation and distribution. All articles are available online at no cost throughout the world, enabling the widest possible reach for the journal irrespective of a reader’s location or economic resources [We are particularly pleased to launch esources . AuthorsJCMD will publish articles covering the full spectrum of movement disorders including hypokinetic disorders , and usual and unusual hyperkinetic disorders . We are interested in both descriptive articles that illustrate phenotype, as well as hypothesis driven articles that explore the etiology, genetics, pharmacology, neuroimaging and treatment options for these patients. Submissions on both adult and pediatric disorders are welcome, and we are particularly interested in novel treatments such as deep brain stimulation. Special features that we plan to integrate into the journal include a clinical phenomenology section, a section devoted to current controversies, and reviews that summarize important findings in the field.JCMD will be independently reviewed by two experts in the field, by a member of the Editorial Board and by the Editor-in-Chief. We are interested in publishing articles of the highest quality and novelty, but will also consider research that may be of more general interest to readers due to novel clinical or examination features, clinical relevance or unusual phenotype, even if the findings are confirmatory. We believe that clinical movement disorders is unique as a subspecialty area in neurology, in that many are drawn to the field by the complexity and subtlety of the clinical examination, and the way in which 21st century technologies can help illuminate these findings.All manuscripts submitted to JCMD includes 43 members from 11 different countries [JCMD will succeed. We hope that you enjoy JCMD, and that you will consider it when deciding where to publish your work.The Editorial Board of Welcome!


Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology (JADPRO) offers potential authors a venue to convey information in a variety of ways, including case studies, review articles on oncology subjects and advanced practice, commentary on unique issues affecting advanced practitioners, or discussions of new pharmaceutical agents. However, all potential authors must be sure that contributions to JADPRO or any publication contain accurate, well-referenced information and that the paper is written in a professional manner. Avoiding plagiarism is a critical part of the professional approach to writing for scientific publication.Writing for publication is an excellent way to communicate your ideas and knowledge to other readers. Publishing in the Plagiarism is the act of taking another's work or ideas and presenting them as your own . Although it may occur because of an author's lack of understanding regarding what constitutes plagiarism, it is a serious concern in medical publishing. The policy of the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is very clear: The ORI believes plagiarism is the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and a significant copying of another's work without appropriate attribution .There are several types of plagiarism. First, the most common form of plagiarism occurs when an author recreates sentences or paragraphs that are essentially identical to another's published work and does not acknowledge or reference the material . Second, plagiarism of ideas may occur when an author takes an idea from someone else and passes it off as his or her own. An example of this might be an idea "stolen" from another professional presenting an idea at a conference or symposium . In another scenario, a reviewer for a journal might read a paper that ends up not being accepted for publication. If the reviewer "adopts" the paper's main idea and publishes something similar on the topic, that is plagiarism . A third form of plagiarism is self-plagiarism, in which an author publishes duplicate forms of his or her own originally published paper, containing redundant information or repeat study results .While I was in nursing school, a fellow student submitted her thesis based on respiratory function; it was later discovered that she had essentially turned in an entire chapter from a well-respected nursing textbook. The professor excused the student partly based on the fact that a lack of understanding of publication ethics existed and that the plagiarism was unintentional; the professor also ruefully noted that she had given the chapter a grade of B-! The student had to submit a new paper, which might be considered an extremely forgiving action; consequences could have been more significant. The take-home message: All written work should be original and referenced appropriately .Professional writing for a scientific journal represents an implicit contract between the reader of the work and its author. It is expected that the author of the published paper is the sole writer responsible for the material; if additional information is included, the work must be referenced . It is accepted that authors writing a professional scientific paper will reference sentinel work or key papers as part of the foundation for an evidence-based paper on a given subject .Once discovered, plagiarism can have serious consequences. A journal can require its authors to notify his or her home institution of a plagiarism charge or publication infraction . If federal funding was a part of the publication, an inquiry is required by statute; clinical trials could be held until the outcome is determined . The ORI's webpage (ori.hhs.gov) lists updates on new misconduct findings by name of perpetrator, with a description of the misconduct. The list includes research misconduct as well as published papers and abstracts containing significant amounts of plagiarized text .JADPRO website at advancedpractitioner.com for a partial list of plagiarism checkers.Although not a foolproof solution to the problem, a plagiarism checker can be a valuable tool for authors and editors alike. There are a number of these tools available online: some require a fee, whereas others are free for public use. Visit the Authors must ensure that published work is original and referenced appropriately; sentences can be suspect if too close to the original material . The Internet has made it all too easy to "cut and paste" another's published work into your own. Your new material should be rephrased and formatted to reflect your meaning while still referencing your support documents. If reproduction of information is needed in your manuscript, then permission must be sought from the publisher.JADPRO, we want to hear from you, and we look forward to publishing original papers from advanced practice authors.At


This is coupled with an equally pressing number of “honorable speaker invitations” to hundreds of meetings around the world, usually without any relation to the field of interest of the message recipient, without any offer to cover the expenses of the trip and accommodations, but of course with an offer of free speech. Just today, while writing this letter, I have received, among others, an invitation to speak at a meeting on anatomy and another to speak at a meeting for chemical engineering!There is no day, I would say no moment, that any active researcher is not overwhelmed by e-mails advertising new, in most cases online, journal publishers repeatedly exhorting the researcher to submit papers. In many cases, they offer a discounted rate for the cost of publication, even of the “submit two papers at the cost of one” kind, in the best spirit of ShopRite or Walmart (without offense to those esteemed supermarket brands)! Some of these new journals have unbelievable names, such as At this explosive daily rate, the numbers of field journals  will soon, and ridiculously, outnumber those scientists actively working in that discipline. Usually, most of these new journals guarantee, sometimes in a rather explicit way, article publication without a real process of peer review. In other cases, the absence of a true peer review process is implicit, for instance, when a journal promises the authors a decision in 7 days, a time that makes impossible any accurate review of the paper, even with the highest editorial dedication.Journal of Experimental Medicine has recently encouraged submissions by offering format-neutral initial submissions, a chance for review of the paper independently of its style and format, via a link to BioRxiv (http://jem.rupress.org). That these authors are offered an expanded market of serious publishing space is welcomed.Why is this happening? In very few cases, this expansion represents a real scientific need of rearranging or reconsidering the field of interest to better match the present evolution of the field or even to cover a new area of research. This usually happens when changes are fostered by journal-publishing scientific societies. Some journals die, others undergo name changes; this is normal life. When this happens, the value and rigor of the new journals equal or surpass those of the old ones. Overall, calls to submit papers for possible publication is not bad in itself, particularly when they come from old and highly reputed journals that use a fierce peer review system. For instance, the https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/).In most other cases, however, the new offers have a purely commercial reason. With the present digital era, it has become quite inexpensive to produce an online journal: a good server and (perhaps) an underpaid secretary may be enough. Of course, you cannot expect a rigorous, respectful, and accurate reviewing system if the earning appetite is the only motivation. The more papers submitted, the more that are published, and the more the publisher earns. In other cases, new journals are being created by some investigators with or without the support of their societies. The underlying motivation is a desire of increased notoriety within the scientific community or a disguised pride to gain some editorial power, perhaps motivated by the frustrations coming from the lack of visibility or rejection of their articles, a fact that is hardly digested after a certain age and a long career. This is comprehensible but unjustified. Finally, it has also become a question of geographic if not political interest. The very large majority of the most authoritative scientific journals are run by publishers and scientific societies largely located in Western countries (the United States and Europe mostly) and using English as the publication language. While this is almost universally accepted, some are inclined to think that publishers from other continents should come into play, offering low-cost publishing space and better representing the research activity of their nations. This can be fair; nonetheless, worldwide expansion of inexperienced publishers equals journal expansion and increases the risk of unreliable data publications and predation (Altogether, the pressures created by the offer of publication will inevitably attract more publications and result in a poor quality of what is being published, thus widening the plethora of an already vast and unreliable scientific literature . In partAnother perhaps more relevant consequence is the danger that an uncontrollable flow of publications can affect scientific research by decreasing its social credit in an era of easy, direct, or indirect access to what is published and the derived media reports. We are all aware that the quantity of unreliable reports is high and that even the most accurate review system cannot entirely avoid false reports or fraud, as evident from the paper that associated measles vaccination with autism . UncontrAs an example, consider the area of vaccines and vaccinations. Some coarse errors that continue and are being repeated by social media, such as the view that some vaccines are associated with autism or asthma, are rightly and effectively counteracted by rigorous scientific evidence of studies demonstrating the absence of any causal relationship between vaccination and those conditions. My experience is that accurate narration of the outcome of those published studies  is usual


PLOS Medicine Editors reflect on the challenge of attaining universal availability for high-quality medical research.On the occasion of the journal's tenth anniversary, the Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary PLOS Medicine's first issue the founders of PLOS laid out their vision for the journal:Ten years ago this month, in PLOS Medicine, we are embracing this opportunity. Everything we publish is immediately, freely available online throughout the world, with no restrictions on distribution, copying, printing, or legitimate useThe established medical publishers have turned their back on the opportunity to make the latest and best medical information available to anyone with an Internet connection. With the launch of PLOS Medicine is here to challenge the status quo” In accordance with the founders' statement that “all of today's leading medical journals are more than 70 years old, and PLOS Medicine will not accept advertisements for pharmaceutical products or medical devices Medical journals have allowed their interests to become aligned with those of the pharmaceutical industry by printing advertisements for drugs, publishing trials designed by drug companies' marketing departments, and making profits on reprints used as marketing tools. The journal has since endeavored to challenge the status quo on an ongoing basis, shining a light on a variety of unhealthy industry practices Over the past decade, however, open access to medical research has become more complicated than just choosing an idealistic new journal over regressive old ones. Researchers now face a complex array of hybrid subscription/publication fee models, institutional archiving policies (sometimes entailing university claims of copyright that publishers may or may not accept), funder mandates, data availability requirements, blacklists and whitelists aiming to identify publishing scams appearing in the guise of open-access (OA) journals, and copyright agreements that retain publisher rights under the guise of OA licenses. Scientific publishing is in a feverish state of transition regarding what will be shared and how.Medical science, perhaps more than any other field caught up in this transition, combines an ethical imperative to ensure the reliability of published research with an ethical imperative to ensure universal accessibility and reuse. In accordance with the first imperative, the medical community values the quality assurance that they may associate with established journals; no responsible professional would wish to base clinical practice or health policy on data of questionable provenance that has been inadequately vetted. On the other hand, traditional indicators of an article's overall importance—in particular, which journal a paper “got into” along a perceived hierarchy of publications—are still confused with, and for some purposes valued higher than, validity or practical relevance. Such indicators are overdue for reassessment, and fulfillment of the second imperative depends on their evolution.PLOS Medicine was one of the first journals to bring attention to the situation While seeking to publish in the most highly esteemed general medical journals is a long-standing tradition, the misuse of journal-level metrics, particularly the journal impact factor, has led to a number of problems. If left to traditional publishers, this tangled web of competing interests, copyright barriers, inappropriate metrics, desire for reward and recognition, and misaligned business models could continue to defy the second imperative—that medical knowledge be universally accessible—for years to come. It's worth remembering, though, that ultimately journals can only publish the research that authors submit and only on copyright terms that authors are willing to grant. In a time of declining research budgets and increasing influence on medicine by corporations that see health through the distorting lens of outsize profit taking, publisher-imposed restrictions on access to knowledge may seem just one among several pressing issues that medical researchers face. This issue, though, is one that researchers themselves fully hold the power to solve, if they choose to do so.PLOS Medicine celebrates its tenth anniversary, the editors renew our aspiration to play a part in making that choice unmistakably clear. We see research ethics and scientific validity as essential to the ultimate goal of better serving patients, and we aim to explore new ways to expedite the availability of clinically important results. We decline to engage in the misuse of metrics that, through entrenched ulterior interests in the publishing industry, work against the ethical imperative to share data and analyses, and we will work instead to establish more appropriate standards in the service of open research.As PLOS Medicine will continue working with researchers to advance its unrestricted availability. To those authors who took a chance on submitting their work—which they could easily have seen published in established titles—to our first issue, and to those who entrust their finest work to PLOS Medicine for freely readable and fully reusable publication today, we extend our sincere and ongoing appreciation.High-quality medical knowledge is a quintessential public good, and


Biomaterials Research in 2014: gold open access. The journal has a long history of publishing research across the broad spectrum of biomedical materials. Supported by the Korea Research Foundation, it was founded in 1996 as the official journal of the Korean Society for Biomaterials. Biomaterials Research now joins BioMed Central’s portfolio of open access journals.It is my pleasure to usher in a new era for  Biomaterials Research explores both the discovery and development of basic medical materials – a field that is growing rapidly, arising both from its scientific importance and the needs of our aging society. We are certain that this transformation into an open access journal will bring Biomaterials Research greater visibility and increase its impact internationally, enabling us to attract new authors and readers from around the world.All articles are accessible online to readers at no cost, ensuring the journal reaches the widest possible audience. Content will be available not only to scientists, but also to those working in industry and policy makers, facilitating the dissemination of important scientific information to all. Authors retain copyright for their work and grant anyone the right to reproduce and disseminate the article (under a CC-BY licence), provided that the original work is correctly cited.Biomaterials Research welcomes both original research articles and invited reviews in diverse fields of experimental and clinical biomaterials, including polymers, ceramics, metals and their combined composites for medical applications from nano- through to macro-scale. The research topics of our publications cover medical materials science, and technology of biomaterials related to regeneration of diverse tissues such as bone, cartilage, skin and blood vessels. Other important research topics include medical science and technology of medical devices and implants, drug delivery systems, nano-biomaterials, bioimaging, stem cells, 3D bioprinting, interfaces between surfaces and cells, biocompatibility, surface modification, immunological responses of biomaterials, in vitro and in vivo evaluations of biomaterials, as well as their clinical applications. We will continue to expand the journal’s scope to cover relevant and state-of-the-art topics in biomaterials research as they emerge.Biomaterials Research. As such, the journal is committed to providing an efficient, high-quality peer-review service. Manuscripts will be processed immediately upon submission. Overseen by an Associate Editor, manuscripts will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, experts in the relevant field, who will be asked to appraise the manuscript in a timely manner. The journal’s constructive and informative peer review will help authors improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The methods and results of the manuscript should be clearly described, and placed in the context of the existing scientific literature. Sufficient experimental and scientific descriptions should be provided to allow readers to evaluate their work with ease, with conclusions appropriately supported by the data presented and the analyses. Acceptance for publication is based upon the scientific content, originality and scientific/clinical impact on the biomaterials field.The timely dissemination of research is critical for improving the scientific impact and competitiveness of Biomaterials Research. By removing access barriers, the journal can be a community hub where interdisciplinary researchers from academia, industry and clinicians can all access, and comment upon, the latest biomaterials research. We welcome your submissions of original research and review manuscripts as we enter this new era in the journal’s history.This new alliance between the Korean Society for Biomaterials and BioMed Central will strengthen the international reach and recognition of Insup Noh, PhDBiomaterials ResearchEditor-in-Chief of


Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation  will provide a platform for researchers and clinicians interested in BPD and in other conditions prominently characterized by emotion dysregulation to share information and new knowledge about these important conditions.Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) has become a major focus of interest in psychiatric and psychological research over the last two decades. BPD was once considered to be a disorder with a poor prognosis that was persistent and disabling, but research has shown that it can be effectively treated and that substantial numbers of patients with BPD improve dramatically over time , 2. New http://www.bpded.com) to assist us, all among the leading experts in BPD and neighboring disorders, who cover the whole range of this large and fascinating field of psychopathology.The journal will focus on the psychological, social and neurobiological aspects of emotion dysregulation. It will cover the whole range of BPD research including, but not limited to, epidemiology, phenomenology, pathophysiology, psychological and pharmacological treatment, neurobiology, genetics, and animal models of BPD. It is important to mention that we also welcome submissions from other fields of psychiatric or psychological research, as long as there is a link to BPD or emotion dysregulation. Emotion dysregulation is at the core of BPD but also stands on its own as a major pathological component of the underlying neurobiology of various other psychiatric disorders. Prominent examples here are posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We are very lucky to have an excellent editorial board  will be able to read the same material as wealthier ones. The traditional business model for scientific publishers relies on restricting access to published research, in order to recoup the costs of the publication process. This restriction of access to published research prevents full use being made of digital technologies, and is contrary to the interests of authors, funders and the scientific community as a whole.In contrast, an open access publishing model treats publication as the last phase of the research process. Article-processing charges (APCs) cover the cost of the publication process to allow free and immediate access to the research articles. APCs ensure transparency and allow publishers to compete to provide the best service at the best price. By coupling the cost of publication to research budgets, APCs ensure that the journal publishing system can scale to cope with an ever-increasing volume of research. Several funding agencies support open-access publishing and provide budgets for APCs. Since we are aware of the fact that APCs still might discourage authors from publishing in open-access journals, we are pleased that the German Association for DBT has provided funding for approximately the first two years of the journal’s publication to cover APCs on behalf of authors who do not have another means of funding. Articles will be rapidly peer-reviewed and will be published online soon after acceptance and will later be listed in PubMed.BPDED as well as your interest as readers of the articles, we are convinced to make this journal a success. We sincerely hope that it will become an integral part of research in borderline personality and emotion dysregulation.Taken together, we strongly believe that our new journal is an important addition to the journal landscape on borderline personality disorder. With your highly appreciated contributions as authors submitting to Martin Bohus MD, Christian Schmahl MD, John M Oldham MD.


As most of you know, at the Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology (JADPRO) we do not charge a fee to US readers who subscribe to the journal. We do not charge potential authors to have their work reviewed by our blind review process, nor do we charge for publication. Our publisher is the respected Harborside Press, also the publisher of the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and TheASCO Post. I believe JADPRO publishes high-quality, relevant articles that inspire and educate the advanced practitioner working in the field of oncology.The open-access publishing phenomenon started approximately 10 years ago, with the introduction of respected journals published by the Public Library of Science . Open access allows access to many helpful, scholarly articles . It’s a boon to readers who can’t afford separate subscriptions to a myriad of scientific journals but need the information for practice and education.The term "predatory publisher" refers to a publishing firm that exploits the open-access model to one that requires the author to pay . Predatory publishers using the open-access model often charge authors a fee to publish without quality control measures such as blinded peer review . Many of these publishers are not up front about their publication. It may be difficult to find out exactly where the publisher’s headquarters are located; they are often located in third-world economies, such as Pakistan or Nigeria .Predatory publishers may send out "spam" emails requesting potential authors to send manuscripts for publication. These emails are usually easy to pick out, but that’s not always the case. Frequently, there are misspellings or obvious grammatical errors . A recent spam email request for a paper had suspicious language such as "your active and enthusiastic submission of manuscript which will be published under respective special issue title you choose for this glorious year." It may be difficult to identify the members of the editorial board. Often the salutation is incorrect on the email; for example, I am usually labeled a PhD or an MD, rather than my correct title of nurse practitioner or master’s prepared registered nurse. Some of these invitations even "promise" to publish an article within a very short time period—sight unseen!The "author pays" model has indeed been used successfully in many respected publications; it’s not completely verboten. Due to the volume of submissions received by ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology, potential authors must pay a fee ($60.00) to be reviewed . A friend of mine was recently charged a hefty fee for his accepted publication in the journal Ecology. As a graduate student, his excitement at being published was quickly overshadowed by the publication bill ($75.00 per printed page); fortunately, his university was willing to pick up the charge . Authors publishing in Dovepress journals are charged a processing fee to pay for editorial and production costs, although a fund exists to cover costs for authors from less developed countries . These are just a few examples from the world of scientific publishing.The "author pays" model is probably here to stay, and open-access publishing has many positive qualities. However, predatory publishers should be approached warily. These requests from publishers are frequently for the specific purpose of acquiring additional income, without adding substantially to professional education or scholarship . A recent editorial on predatory publishing in TheNew York Times discussed the experiences of scientists who were recruited to speak at a conference; once they appeared, they found out that not all the speakers were necessarily experts in the field and all had been recruited by email . The speakers who ended up making a presentation were later charged a significant fee for the "privilege" of speaking .Jeffrey Beall is an academic research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver with a keen interest in the concept of predatory publishers. Mr. Beall has followed questionable publishers and journals and developed a list of open-access predatory publishers and journals. You can access this list at http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/. Beall has also listed his criteria for determining whether a journal is potentially predatory or not.As the editor-in-chief of JADPRO, I am excited to offer our readers substantial, expert articles approved by our blind review process and professional editorial board members. JADPRO does not charge a fee for either the review or publication of an accepted paper. All content is rigorously evaluated by our review board in terms of relevance, appropriateness, and academic scholarship. I believe our journal offers our readers vetted quality information via the "open-access" model. Professional publishing is an excellent way to share one’s knowledge with others. We welcome potential authors to submit appropriate manuscripts to JADPRO. No money required—bring only your commitment to excellence and your passion for what you do.


SICOT-J has now been launched. It is backed by an internationally renowned Editorial Board and we seek quality publications.Over the last few years, Orthopaedics has been inundated with Open Access journals, the continued quality and survivorship of which is uncertain. SICOT, the only international society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology has therefore decided to participate and take a lead in this rapidly evolving field. SICOT-J is an Open Access journal which publishes original clinical, basic and translational research in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology. SICOT-J will accept, subject to peer review, review articles, original articles, research articles, surgical techniques, case reports, congress proceedings, editorials and letters to the Editor.SICOT-J is published under Open Access conditions, all the articles will also be published quickly by the Open Access Repository (OAR) of publicly accessible scientific articles, in Biomedical and Life Science journals and by PubMed Central which is hosted by the US National Institute of health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).As SICOT-J by visiting the website of the journal at www.sicot-j.org. We hope that many of you will support the Journal as it is with your quality articles that the journal’s impact in the field of orthopaedics and traumatology will quickly flourish.We invite you to submit your articles to The Editors-in-chiefJacques CatonHatem Said