Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact. This Perspective article argues that universities should take action to support open scholarship that benefits society and to return to their core missions of knowledge dissemination, community engagement, and public good. These initiatives have been key in raising awareness and acceptance of open scholarship. However, despite these advances, I believe we have hit a wall that is impeding widespread adoption. While increasing numbers of academics may ideologically support sharing their work, many are concerned with how these practices will affect their career prospects and advancement )ancement –13.Academic institutions are one of the primary influencers affecting how faculty perceive open scholarship and how willing they are to engage in certain practices , 13, 14.To my knowledge, community-engaged scholarship is perhaps a liability in the promotion process, because it slows work down and may result in fewer publications. Publications, by the number, still reign supreme here.Faculty understandably pay attention to what institutions value and where evaluation committees place the most weight to decide where to invest the most personal effort. As a University of Idaho faculty member wrote in response to a 2013 survey ,What will we value at tenure and promotion? That will be the predominant driver of what we as a university community do. If public outreach and measure of its effectiveness can be captured and it becomes highly valued—then maybe that’s what we’ll be doing instead.A 2015 survey in the United Kingdom found that academics are increasingly tailoring their scholarly production and publication decisions to fit institutional evaluation criteria . Thus, IThere is no one unanimously accepted definition of open scholarship; the debate continues as to what the minimum requirements and best practices are for different types of open content . Some ofAt the time these declarations were written, they were revolutionary, and their original language still guides open scholarship efforts today. However, research has rapidly changed over the last 10–15 years, and projects are now producing much more than just articles, including large amounts of data, different types of digital media, electronic notebooks, and complex software. In recent years, open science has emerged as an umbrella term to refer to open access, open data, open notebooks, open source, or any other aspect of our work as researchers that can be shared , 22. IntMore recently, there has been recognition that “open science” may not be as inclusive a term as we might like , and somFor this to work, it is in turn important that universities have ways of recognizing diverse scholarly products and different types of sharing. But with all the different standards, how are universities to determine what counts as open scholarship? I propose that universities take guidance from perhaps the simplest and all-encompassing international standard, the Open Definition from Open Knowledge, which states, "Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose" . This deA comprehensive discussion of the benefits of open scholarship is beyond the scope of this paper In 2010, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) committed to the creation of Inclusive Knowledge Societies :In the past, information and knowledge have too often been the preserve of powerful social or economic groups. Inclusive Knowledge Societies are those in which everyone has access to the information that s/he needs and to the skills required to turn that information into knowledge that is of practical use in her/his life.Currently, our societies are far from inclusive. All over the world, people lack access to scientific information . A studyIn the lowest-income countries, 56 percent of the institutions had no current subscriptions to international journals and 21 percent had an average of only two journal subscriptions. In the tier with the next-lowest incomes, 34 percent of institutions had no current subscriptions, and 34 percent had two to five journal subscriptions.Just recently, it was announced that scientists in Germany, Peru , and TaiOpen scholarship democratizes access to information by making research available to all, regardless of financial resources—a necessary, though not sufficient, step in creating a true "knowledge democracy" . RemovinUniversities are by nature exclusionary—there are limited spots and often only those with the highest grades and test scores are accepted. In the 1940s, people began referring to academic institutions as ivory towers, where an elite few engaged in intellectual pursuits, largely "disengaged" from the concerns or needs of the public . If anythttps://openstax.org), run by Rice University, because I know my students cannot afford expensive textbooks but still need access to quality information to learn.How can institutions move away from this negative image and become more inclusionary? Increasing acceptance rates is not feasible for economic and infrastructure reasons. However, universities can allow everyone access to the knowledge created inside their walls. Open educational resources (OERs) are a prime example of openness increasing inclusion , 49 and https://www.edx.org, run by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), is one indication that institutions are recognizing their exclusionary nature as a problem and trying to improve access to education by lowering financial and presential barriers. While this can be seen as positive, it is also important to not lose sight of the goal to increase inclusion. The issue is not just access but also participation ).Similarly, institutions often tout the importance of collaborative and interdisciplinary research e.g., , 120). Y. Y120]).The use of proxy measures, like journal impact factor (IF), to judge the quality and importance of articles is still pervasive in academic evaluations , 126 (e.http://bit.ly/PTreform), which include students, postdocs, and pretenure faculty who are understandably concerned about how evaluation criteria will affect their career prospects and advancement. Unfortunately, while early-career researchers (ECRs) may be the best equipped to say how evaluation criteria affect career development or to propose ways of evaluating new forms of digital scholarship, they are rarely given formal opportunities to do so. Senior leadership could support ECRs by giving them more of an institutional voice and including ECR representatives on faculty senates, hiring committees, and tenure review boards.Those in senior leadership roles at universities can support faculty and promote open scholarship by ensuring that incentives exist to encourage and reward sharing. In the action items listed throughout, I propose several ways that shared code, data, educational resources, outreach activities, preprints, and more could be recognized by committees. These and other suggestions to reform promotion and tenure evaluations are summarized in Stop using journal-level metrics, like impact factor, to evaluate the quality and impact of research articles. Institutions can sign the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (http://www.ascb.org/dora).Use article-level metrics, such as citation counts, as one quantitative measure of article use and impact. While citation counts are not perfect, they are more representative than journal-level metrics of the impact of individual articles.Use alternative metrics, such as tweet activity and media coverage, as one way of evaluating the broader societal impact of research works.Consider shared code and data deposited in public repositories as research products that count in evaluations. Quantitative measures of impact could include citations, repository forks, and pull requests.Consider preprints as evidence of academic productivity. Preprints do not necessarily have to count as highly as peer-reviewed articles but should still count in evaluations. Support for this perspective comes from the recent Accelerating Science and Publication in biology (ASAPbio) meeting and movement [movement .Value scientific outreach, such as blogging and articles in popular media, as academic outputs that count in evaluations.Make forms flexible by adding space for researchers to describe nontraditional research outputs and their open scholarship activities.Institutions may take even stronger stances in favor of open scholarship. A policy similar to that at the University of Liège, which requires that faculty upload their work to the institution's open access repository to be considered in promotion and tenure evaluations , could bReforming evaluations will be a huge step towards more widespread adoption of open scholarship. However, changing policies alone will likely not be enough to transform universities and make sharing the norm rather than the exception. Problems with evaluation systems can be viewed as a symptom of a much bigger problem, namely, an academic culture that has come to favor quantity over quality, labels over content, individual over group accomplishments, and prestige over public good. Universities play a crucial role in determining this cultural environment. Through career advancement decisions, funding and space allocations, faculty prizes, press releases, and even website content, the university signals to academics what it values and what is required to be an accepted member of the community. As in any culture, there is a sense of belonging fostered by what is seen to be a set of shared interests and values. Missions statements are intended to explicitly outline those shared interests and values for the university community, but these words can end up being empty when the institution signals through its actions that its values are different or conflicting. Faculty pay acute attention to these signals and can feel strong pressure to align their practices accordingly. This may be especially true for faculty just starting out, who are working to integrate themselves into their new environment and become valued community members. Thus, "the culture of an institution…is a strong force affecting faculty values and activities" .Importantly, I see the actions I have proposed throughout not so much as a dramatic shift towards new academic cultural values, but more as a return to old ones. Broadening our definition of scholarship, valuing public engagement, wanting the university to be a force for positive social change—these are not new ideas –136. TheI have outlined my vision of a university that endorses the principles of open scholarship, not just in words but in practice, and actively supports faculty in sharing their work. This support can span a continuum from simple steps, like providing space on evaluation forms for faculty to describe their open scholarship or outreach efforts, to more complicated actions, like the redistribution of institutional funds to finance open initiatives. I realize universities may not be able to enact all the reforms I have proposed; some may not be possible due to certain university governance structures, and others may meet with significant resistance. However, if universities work towards just a few of these reforms over the next 2 to 5 years, I think they could significantly increase the adoption of open scholarship practices. The most impactful reforms, as suggested by faculty surveys, are likely to be changes made to evaluation criteria to better recognize and reward diverse types of open scholarship, accompanied by outward signaling from universities that these activities are valued. Such changes may be challenging to enact, but I argue it is worth the effort. As universities embrace sharing, they will likely find it has broad benefits, increasing their visibility, funding, and recruitment power and, most importantly, helping institutions meet core missions like dissemination of knowledge and positive contributions to society.


We established two major goals: publish cutting-edge science and implement policies and processes to make the publication experience less onerous for authors (mSphere has been mentioned more than 400 times in news outlets in the past year). The editors have strived to reduce the need for authors to engage in an ongoing back-and-forth dialog with reviewers and editors by aiming to limit revisions to one round. We have also sped up the turnaround on first decisions, on average letting authors know the disposition of their manuscripts within 3 weeks. All of these accomplishments are a testimony to a team of senior editors, editors, and staff members who believe strongly in our goals.A little over 1 year ago, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) launched mSphere could be a journal of a kind like no other, one that addresses some of these issues in a creative way to improve the author experience while guaranteeing high-quality standards.Through this process, we paid attention to the rapidly evolving publishing landscape and to the trends that affect the future of scholarly publishing. Most importantly, we identified key pressure points that, in general, dissatisfy the scientific community and asked ourselves if before peer review, by depositing manuscripts in a repository such as bioRχiv (http://www.asm.org/index.php/ceo-blog/item/8-preprint-publication-the-force-awakens-or-the-revenge-of-the-undead and asapbio.org). Preprints put the timing of communication of discoveries in the authors’ hands and not in those of editors and publishers. This is an interesting approach that ASM supports and that will significantly change the publication landscape. Today, peer-reviewed journal articles conflate two different purposes: communication of the discovery by publication of the article itself and establishment of relevance of the discovery, first through the peer review process and later through citations. With preprints, these two functions are split: discovery communication happens with posting of the preprint in advance of peer review, while relevance is assessed largely through peer review and citations of the published article, afterward  they have chosen appropriate reviewers and (ii) they have carefully considered the content of the reviews. If accepted, the manuscript will be posted along with the names of the reviewers. Authors must ensure that the individuals they ask to review the manuscript agree to this requirement. As is the case now with any manuscript submitted to an ASM journal, authors can of course choose to post a preprint on a server at any time. Additionally, not only can authors submit their final manuscript to bioRχiv but the paper will be flagged as a pending publication by mSphere immediately, if accepted.Briefly, mSphereDirect will work as follows. Authors will write a manuscript, and they will ask two reputable scientists in the field, who have no conflicts, to act as reviewers. The authors will then consider the reviews, revise the manuscript in response to those reviews, and submit to the journal six items: the final manuscript, the two reviews, a cover letter that summarizes the review process the authors used, the authors’ rebuttal to the original reviewers, and an acknowledgment from the reviewers that they are satisfied with the final version. Then, an mBio. Until now, this track has been the most rapid path to publication in an ASM journal; and, importantly, evidence shows that the quality of the papers published through this track has been indistinguishable from papers submitted through the standard track in which an editor oversees the review process . Having the reviewers’ names posted with the article will also enhance the quality of the reviews. We hope that authors and reviewers will engage in an iterative process, as needed, to improve the quality of the science and the manuscript. We wish to state clearly, however, that if a senior editor is at all uncomfortable with either the choice of reviewers or the quality of the reviews, the manuscript will be rejected.Of course, there are potential issues that arise with this system. Let us state from the outset that we fully expect that authors and reviewers will adhere to the highest ethical standards while engaging in the presubmission process. Without the integrity of all involved, this system is not viable. We will therefore be providing clear guidance to authors and reviewers on what will be expected by the journal. ASM has also developed an ethics resources website to help authors understand the issues, enhance rigor, and facilitate publication in ASM journals  before beginning the review process and submitting your manuscript. We are very interested in your thoughts as you engage in this experiment with the way ASM journals undertake peer review. Please contact Mike Imperiale if you have any question.Please read the FAQs posted on the journal website (mSphere remains a very valuable option for those who wish to pursue the “classic” approach, but we also look forward to your participation in mSphereDirect, where you, as an author, are front and center. As we say at mSphere, it is all about you: your research, your direction, you’re in control.The regular review track of


Future Science OA. 2015 was an exciting year for us, with the publication of our first content and being indexed by the Database of Open Access Journals [Welcome to volume 2 of We published over 70 articles in 2015, which comprised editorials, opinion pieces, reviews and original research from an international group of authors. Covering a wide range of topics of relevance to medicine, we have seen over 2500 full-text readers each month, from across the globe. The majority of our readers are within North America, Europe and Asia, with readers also across Australasia, South America, the Middle East and Africa . This isOur most-read article saw Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Xavier Montagutelli  provide an insight into their thoughts on the future of animal models in biological research , followiWith the increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the continued lack of an effective therapy, Ruth MacLeod and colleagues  reviewed the role and therapeutic targeting of secretases in Alzheimer's disease , asking Mariana Varna and colleagues  reviewed current work looking into the potential of nanomedicine to help solve the issue of inactivation of thrombolytic drugs in the blood . They eaGaurav Agrawal, Thomas Borody and colleagues  presented a case report evaluating a novel combination therapy for resistant fistulizing Crohn's disease .et al.'s case report demonstrating a need for more collaboration to ensure literature reviews are comprehensive [Other top articles to highlight include Andreea Milasan and colleagues’ review of the lymphatic network in atherosclerosis , Bejoy Tehensive , a new gehensive , an examehensive , and, fiehensive . This coWe published two excellent special issues in 2015. The first examined detection and delivery of nitric oxide releasing materials, featuring guest editors Joel and Adam Friedman  . The secFuture Science OA, and their contributions to the journal thus far. Our senior editors Benoit Arsenault , Ian A Blair  and Paul Span  are joined by international experts from across the globe. In addition, we are supported by a panel of young ambassadors; early-career researchers who are helping us to develop the journal to ensure it meets the needs of the next generation of researchers.We have been very thankful to the editorial board  for theiFor those of you active on social media, you may be aware of our relevant accounts, through which we keep you abreast of journal content and news, and encourage discussion of our articles. If you have not already, you can follow us on LinkedIn  and FaceFuture Science OA allows us to ensure we maximize discoverability and readership of our articles. All of our articles are released through a variety of online outlets, and this year we have implemented a variety of ways to aid our authors in increasing the reach of their work.The open access nature of We have been delighted to begin working with Altmetric , which aIn addition, we have partnered with Kudos  to aid o2015 was an excellent year, and we look forward to working with you all in 2016. We welcome unsolicited article proposals covering all topics of relevance to human health, and would be delighted to hear from you. Finally, if you have any suggestions about the journal, please do not hesitate to get in touch.


Medical Physics and the Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics (JACMP), which synergistically span the breadth of its membership's professional endeavors. Medical Physics publishes research concerned with the application of physics and mathematics to the solution of problems in medicine and human biology, with an emphasis on theoretical and experimental approaches. The JACMP is an applied journal that publishes papers designed to help clinical medical physicists and other health professionals perform their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently for the increased benefit of the patient. The two journals reflect two different missions, engage two different publication approaches, and operate under two different financial models. Nevertheless, the two journals, each with its own identity, are complementary in their mission and scope; in effect, the “new science” of today fostered by Medical Physics becomes the “practical clinical science” of tomorrow disseminated by JACMP. The purpose of this editorial is to explain the complex interplay of economic factors that impact financial decisions governing the journals and the returns they bring to the AAPM.Scientific publishing is a major endeavor of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Although publishing requires substantial resources, it has the potential to generate both reputation and revenue to further the missions of a professional society. The AAPM owns and publishes two journals: The scientific literature represents a compact between the scientific community and society. Articles that become part of “the literature” are held in high regard by the public, with imposed expectations of a robust scientific peer review process; a product that is consistent in format, well organized, free from errors, and visually appealing; accessibility through known and accepted portals (electronic or otherwise) with standard indices that allow for efficient retrieval of specified content; and long‐term persistence through reliable archival approaches. This complex set of requirements has associated costs that are significant.Medical Physics reflects expenses that include diverse items such as printing and paper, shipping, commissions on advertising sales, copyediting and production, compliance with the open‐access policies of the NIH and other funding sources, editor and editorial office expenses, and AAPM staff support charges. It is important to note that a substantial fraction of Medical Physics expenses is incurred for the express purpose of generating revenue. The revenue side of the 2016 Medical Physics budget includes advertising , nonmember subscriptions , excess page charges, printed color figure fees, reprint fees, and author‐sponsored open‐access article processing charges. All net revenue from Medical Physics remains with the AAPM to fund its broad range of activities that benefit the field of medical physics.The budget for Medical Physics. All net revenue from the journals belongs to the AAPM, and any deficits incurred by the journals must be covered by the AAPM. Medical Physics has been self‐sustaining for nearly 20 years. AAPM members can find a more detailed discussion of journal finances and membership dues considerations in the November/December 2015 AAPM Newsletter.All the activities that the AAPM undertakes in fulfilling its mission to advance the field of medical physics are funded by three main sources: member dues, the annual meeting, and JACMP is an online‐only, gold open‐access, bimonthly journal that follows a very different publication model. The budget for JACMP reflects expenses that include article layout and proofreading, copyediting, metadata markup, the manuscript platform, article hosting, and editor and editorial office expenses. The revenue side of the JACMP budget contains two sources of revenue: advertising and the newly instituted $500‐per‐article processing charge. JACMP has made important contributions toward advancement of the gold open‐access publishing paradigm. Consistent with the gold open‐access movement, JACMP is freely available to all readers. An open‐access journal, however, is not inherently less expensive to publish than a subscription‐based journal; under the usual open‐access paradigm, publication costs are shifted from the readers/subscribers to the authors, who benefit from more widespread access to their work.JACMP has allowed authors to publish without fees since its inception 16 years ago, the deficit in JACMP publication costs has been funded solely by the AAPM since it acquired the journal in 2012. Recent growth of the JACMP has increased the financial burden of publication. Advertising revenue currently covers a relatively small fraction of JACMP publication costs, and expanded advertising opportunities are being explored. Consistent with the open‐access paradigm, authors are now assessed an article processing charge of $500 for an article published in JACMP; a waiver policy for authors from developing countries is being developed. Advertising and article processing charges are expected to offset roughly two‐thirds of JACMP publication costs in 2016, with the AAPM funding the remainder. The goal is to put JACMP on a trajectory of financial self‐sufficiency, to ensure the long‐term sustainability of this resource to the community.Most  reputable open‐access journals require authors to pay an article processing charge, which typically runs between $1,500–$3,000. While the JACMP is published online only, which avoids all the costs of paper, printing, and delivery; Medical Physics was first published on paper long before online publishing was viable, and it is currently published in both paper and online formats. The paper version of Medical Physics actually continues to attract enough revenue from subscriptions and advertising to significantly exceed those additional print‐related expenses, so the print version has remained independently viable. During the past two years, however, the print version of Medical Physics has experienced a slight decline in revenue. The AAPM constantly monitors the viability of print and seeks to understand any possible negative economic impact of a transition to an online‐only publication; the AAPM is prepared to make such a transition when (and if) a transition would be of net economic benefit. It should be noted that five categories of Medical Physics content are already published only online .Medical Physics, and the Editor‐in‐Chief of JACMP. The Chair of the JBMC is an ex officio member of the editorial boards of both journals. The JBMC reports to the AAPM's Administrative Council.The AAPM recently has devoted substantial effort toward defining, integrating, and reaffirming its interests in scientific publishing. An Ad Hoc Committee on Journal Publications was convened between 2013 and 2014. The charge of this committee was to address the scope of the journals; to review business management approaches to maintain quality of content, to maintain a healthy financial position, and to ensure availability to medical physicists throughout the world; and to maintain a process of editorial review that balances speed of publication and quality of review. The final report contains valuable recommendations that are still being evaluated for practical implementation, but two key foundation‐laying initiatives were enacted in 2015. The first initiative was the release of a request for proposals (RFP) to seek a common platform of publishing and manuscript review services for both journals. A common platform will provide a uniform experience for authors and readers of both journals, facilitate efficient exchange of manuscripts between the journals when appropriate, strengthen the AAPM branding of the two journals, and yield an economic benefit to the AAPM. This RFP is under active solicitation. The second initiative was the creation of a single Journals Business Management Committee (JBMC) so that both journals, despite having different financial models, could benefit from a common group of individuals setting policy and providing economic oversight. The unifed JBMC was created as a merger of two previous committees that were responsible for each journal separately. The JBMC is tasked with overseeing the financial aspects of the AAPM's two journals to strategically evolve their financial stability while ensuring the highest level of quality for both. The voting members of the JBMC include the Chair, the AAPM Treasurer, three at‐large members, the Editor‐in‐Chief of Medical Physics content as open access , the integration of a single JBMC for the two journals, the implementation of a common publication platform, and the enhancement of online features for both journals. The ultimate goal has always been the advancement of the journals' status in the literature combined with fulfillment of the AAPM's mission.Publishing will continue to play an important role in the AAPM mission to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM, therefore, is committed to ensuring that its two scientific journals thrive and flourish. The JBMC is the steward of the journals' collective financial welfare, while the editors, along with the editorial boards, cultivate the scientific quality and integrity of their respective journals. Together, these efforts have nurtured two highly respected journals that make important complementary contributions to our field. The scientific publishing enterprise, however, is undergoing significant transformation, presenting challenges that the JBMC monitors constantly; AAPM publishing strategies must anticipate, assess, and respond in a manner that balances sometimes‐competing interests. Examples of such strategies include the designation of more Samuel G. Armato III, PhDChair, AAPM Journals Business Management CommitteeMichael D. Mills, PhDJACMPEditor‐in‐Chief The AAPM Journals Business Management Committee: Samuel G. Armato III, Chair;J. Daniel Bourland, Michael D. Mills, Matthew B. Podgorsak, Michelle M. Svatos,Jeffrey F. Williamson. Non‐Voting Appointments: Bruce H. Curran,Shiva K. Das, Mitchell M. Goodsitt, Per H. Halvorsen,Christopher H. Marshall, Timothy D. Solberg


How many invitations did you receive last week to publish your latest research data in a journal with a name very similar to those of our classic scientific journals? The reason for this generosity must be the high chance of cheating researchers so that they pay article processing charges. These journals have been denominated ‘predatory journals’ and have interested a Canadian librarian, Charles Beall, to a very high extent. The so-called ‘Beall’s list of predatory journals’ has become widely recognized , and todScience. It was submitted to 304 open-access journal, and interestingly more than half of the journals accepted the article for publication. To what extent this flaw of the peer review process was caused by peer review fraud or not was not looked at. Perhaps that was because the phenomenon has become so much highlighted lately by all the retractions that had been found to be published after peer review fraud (One more threat to scholarly publishing is that of the shortcomings of the peer review process. That aspect was the subject of a debate article a couple of years ago by Hanna Norsted in a neighbourhood journal . The titUJMS papers (Anyhow, our journal has survived for more than 150 years in spite of both technical changes and some periods of falling interest. The 150-year jubilee was celebrated with the publication of a special issue ,5 and anS papers . With soUJMS, utilizing the Thomson Reuter database. For the period 2010–2014 we have published 227 papers, and we have had three papers qualifying for the 1% and 23 for the 10% category. Thus, we can claim that we, in this respect, behave like the average journal in the Thomson Reuter database. Two of the top-cited papers, Nazarenko et al. (While impact factor figures tell us about the citation fate of an average article of the journal during a certain time period, it might also be of interest to see how often individual papers become very frequently cited. Or in other words, with what frequency does it happen that a certain journal publishes a scientific blockbuster? In a bibliometric publication from the Swedish Research Council some years ago Swedish scholarly publishing was compared with that in other European countries . Figureso et al.  and Nordo et al. , were ino et al. . The thiAlthough the threats towards our journal seem fairly weak, we consider the slight decrease of the submission rate as a problematic phenomenon. Against that background the enthusiasm from the board of the Upsala Medical Society for starting the use of article processing charges was meagre at our last meeting. No doubt, the combination of full open-access publishing without charging the authors any sort of fees is not that common, and it implies that people, i.e. editors, editorial board members, and referees, are willing to put a lot of their free time into the project still keeping the quality flag high and waving.


To gain insight into the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process, we analyzed data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website. Aspects studied are duration of the first review round, total review duration, immediate rejection time, the number, quality, and difficulty of referee reports, the time it takes authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript, and overall quality of the experience. We find clear differences in these aspects between scientific fields, with Medicine, Public health, and Natural sciences showing the shortest durations and Mathematics and Computer sciences, Social sciences, Economics and Business, and Humanities the longest. One-third of journals take more than 2 weeks for an immediate (desk) rejection and one sixth even more than 4 weeks. This suggests that besides the time reviewers take, inefficient editorial processes also play an important role. As might be expected, shorter peer review processes and those of accepted papers are rated more positively by authors. More surprising is that peer review processes in the fields linked to long processes are rated highest and those in the fields linked to short processes lowest. Hence authors’ satisfaction is apparently influenced by their expectations regarding what is common in their field. Qualitative information provided by the authors indicates that editors can enhance author satisfaction by taking an independent position vis-à-vis reviewers and by communicating well with authors. The scientific peer review process is one of the weakest links in the process of scientific knowledge production. While it is possible to review a paper in less than a day (Ware and Mabe www.scirev.sc). On this website, researchers can share their experiences with the peer review process regarding manuscripts they have submitted to scientific journals. This information can subsequently be used by their colleagues when selecting a journal to submit their work. Information is available on several important aspects of the peer review process, including the duration of the first review round, total review duration, the time editors take to inform authors about an immediate (desk) rejection of a manuscript, the number and quality of referee reports, the time authors take to revise and resubmit their manuscript, and the overall quality of the process as experienced by the authors.To gain insight into the duration and other key aspects of the peer review process, we analyze data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website  seriously? Is a reasonable motivation for a (desk) rejection given? Does the editor take an independent position vis-à-vis reviewers when making important decisions? Does the editor advise authors on the importance of specific reviewer comments? Together these aspects affect the author’s experience with the journal and to a certain extent may turn a rejection into a good experience or an acceptance into a bad one. We therefore also analyze the authors’ overall evaluation scores given to the journals for their peer review performance as well as the motivations given by authors for their scores. Because an author’s review experience is influenced by many factors , we study the overall scores in a multivariate way and also analyze the authors’ scoring motivations.There are around 28,000 scientific journals worldwide, which publish 2.5 million scientific articles annually, produced by a research community of 6–9 million scientists  reject it. If desk rejected, the corresponding author receives a message from the editor that the manuscript is considered not fit for publication in the journal, with or without a brief motivation given for the rejection. A manuscript that has passed this first stage will then be send out for peer review, whereby experts in the field (peers of the authors) evaluate the manuscript and write a referee report. On the basis of these reports, the editor decides either to reject the manuscript or gives the author(s) an opportunity to revise and resubmit it, or—in exceptional cases,—directly accepts it. In case of a revise-and-resubmit, several additional review rounds may follow before a final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made. If the process takes exceptionally long, the author may decide to withdraw the manuscript and submit it to another journal.Given the fact that reviewers are often overloaded with academic work, that they are generally not paid for their review work, and that reviews are mostly anonymous, there are few incentives to give high priority to this work Azar . Hence, It is therefore not surprising that one of the most important criticisms of the peer review system is that it is much too slow Lotriet . There aFrom the author’s perspective, first response time is particularly important, i.e., the time that elapses between submission and first response from the editor, be it rejection, acceptance, or a revise-and-resubmit. First response time is important because it often delays the publication of an article more than once, as many manuscripts are rejected once or several times before acceptance Azar . There aDurations vary substantially between scientific fields and even within the same broader discipline. Kareiva et al. , for insWith respect to the number of times the average manuscript is rejected before it reaches the journal that will publish it, Azar  arrives Editors are also worried about these developments. ‘Amongst journal editors there are growing concerns that the quality—and duration—of the review process is being negatively affected as “referees are stretched thin by other professional commitments”. This often leads to “challenges in finding sufficient numbers of reviewers in a timely manner” Lotriet , p. 27.’www.publons.com), a website where reviewers can upload information on anonymous review work they performed. This information is then verified with the journals and can subsequently be used as ‘proof’ of the peer review work done by the reviewer. This initiative provides a solution to the recognition problem. However, it does not help solve the problems of duration and quality as neither the time reviewers spent writing the reports nor the quality of their reports are registered.Several suggestions have been done to make it more attractive for scientists to act as reviewers. Free subscription to journal content, annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website, more feedback about the outcome of the submission and quality of the review, appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board and financial incentives , provided it has been subjected to peer review.Authors who submitted a review to SciRev.sc were asked about their affiliation, which was checked by asking them for their institutional email address and sending a confirmation link to that address. Authors who registered with a noninstitutional email address, because for various reasons they could not provide an institutional one , were asked for additional information to check their identity. Reviews were only accepted if the author’s identity was confirmed. Reviews of accepted papers were additionally checked at the journals’ websites; these reviews were only included if the author had indeed published a paper in the journal during the period mentioned.Although the data are not based on a representative sample of author experiences, they are interesting because they paint a broad picture of the range of author experiences from different fields of study. Each submitted review represents the experience of an author and is important as such. If other authors report similar experiences, this would point toward a specific pattern. And if the resultant patterns differ among scientific fields, this would indicate that the prevalence of specific experiences differs among those fields.There is little reason to expect authors from different fields to be fundamentally different in the way they experience the different aspects of the peer review process. However, there might be different expectations between fields about review duration and hence about what is considered a long process. Besides by field differences, experiences may also be colored by the process outcome and the journal’s impact factor. We therefore split the figures presented in this paper according to scientific field and process outcome (accepted/rejected) and also study relationships with the journal’s impact factor. Information on the impact factor was derived from the journal’s website and other Internet sources. This information could be found for 3126 reviews. In our analysis, we use the natural logarithm of the impact factor, as more journals are concentrated in the lower ranges of the impact factor.Of the 3500 review experiences, 572 (16.3%) referred to manuscripts that were rejected without being sent to reviewers, 693 (19.8%) that were rejected after the first review round, 2128 (60.8%) that were accepted after one or more review rounds, 43 (1.2%) that were immediately accepted without peer review process, and 64 (1.8%) that were withdrawn by the author. Given the relatively small number of reported cases of manuscripts that were withdrawn or immediately accepted, these were not included in our analysis. We also removed some extreme cases regarding immediate rejection time , duration of first review round and total review duration , and duration of revision after first review round . The extreme cases were not concentrated in specific fields.n = 172), (2) Natural sciences (n = 1408), (3) Engineering , (4) Mathematics and Computer sciences (n = 375), (5) Medicine (n = 640), (6) Public health , (7) Psychology , (8) Economics and Business , (9) Social sciences (n = 553), and (10) Humanities (n = 178). Given that a substantial number of journals have a broad scope and therefore include more than one scientific field, the sum of the reviews in the different fields is higher than the total number of reviews.Information on the various aspects of the peer review process is presented for all review experiences, separately for accepted and rejected papers and for ten major scientific fields: (1) General journals  category. For 289 cases the impact factor was missing. These missings were addressed using the dummy variable adjustment procedure [imputing the mean and including a dummy indicating the missings  to 5 (excellent). The outcome of the peer review process is a dummy indicating whether the paper was accepted (1) or rejected (0). The duration of the first review round is measured in days. To indicate language background, we included a dummy indicating whether (1) or not (0) the organization where the author works is located in a country where English is the main language used in daily life . Of the 3500 reviews, 2516 were submitted by authors from non-English-speaking countries. Regarding the distribution of reviews over continents, 557 were obtained from Canada and the USA, 96 from Latin America and the Carribean, 2099 from Europe, 470 from Asia and the Pacific, 190 from the Middle East, 83 from Africa, and 5 of which the continent is not known. For the dummies for scientific field, deviation from mean (effects) coding is used. The dummies therefore indicate to what extent the overall rating within the field is higher or lower than the mean of the fields Hardy .After rating the overall review experience, authors are given the opportunity to motivate their rating in a few words or sentences. These motivations are published online with the reviews, if permission is given by the author. They paint a sometimes revealing picture of what researchers experience in their attempts to get their work published. To supplement the figures presented in this paper with qualitative information, we analyzed the 1879 motivations available in the 3500 reviews studied.For authors, the duration of the first review round, or first response time, is probably the factor they are mostly interested in, as this takes up a substantial part of the total manuscript evaluation time and to a large extent determines how much time is lost if the outcome is negative. First response time includes the time taken by the journal for a first evaluation of the manuscript, finding reviewers, the time the latter require to do their work, and the time the editor then requires to evaluate the manuscript in light of the referee reports and to inform authors about the decision.As can be seen in Table While writing a peer review may take between 4 and 8 h, in only 19% of all reported cases authors were informed about the outcome in less than a month. In about one third of the cases (32%) authors had to wait 3 months or more and in 10% of the cases even more than 6 months before being informed. Duration differs widely between scientific fields. In Social sciences and Humanities, only 7–8% of the authors were informed within 1 month versus 25% in Natural sciences and 27–28% in Medicine and Public health. In Economics and Business and Mathematics and Computer sciences over one sixth (18%) of authors had to wait 6 months or longer.It is yet unclear to what extent the long duration of the first review round is the result of the peer review process as such and to what extent it is due to (in)efficient manuscript handling at editorial offices. Given that immediate rejection times are often long (see Table P = −0.29) as well as for all scientific fields separately, with General journals (P = −0.51), Mathematics and Computer sciences (P = −0.27), and Natural sciences (P = −0.26) having the highest correlations. The only exception was Humanities, where no significant correlation between first response time and impact factor was found. This might be because this field traditionally values publishing books more than publishing in journals , General journals (2.18), Economics and Business (2.16), and Social sciences (2.15) showing a higher average number of review rounds.Total review duration correlates significantly and negatively (−0.27) with a journal’s impact factor, thus indicating that total review duration is shorter for higher impact factor journals.Immediate rejection time is the time an editor takes to inform authors that he or she is not interested in the manuscript (and will therefore not send it to reviewers). Our figures clearly show that immediate rejection time is a major source of unnecessary time loss in the peer review process Table . On averOn the positive side, in half (50%) of the reported immediate rejection cases, the editor informed the author(s) within 1 week. However, the data also show that in 17% of cases authors had to wait more than 4 weeks to be informed of the rejection. Several authors even had to wait for more than 3 months, or withdrew their manuscripts after hearing nothing for an even longer period. These are clearly unacceptable practices.The situation is best in Medicine, where 62% of authors are informed about an immediate rejection within 7 days, followed by Natural sciences and Public health where this figure is 54%. Immediate rejection time is longest for authors in the Social sciences and Mathematics and Computer sciences, where in about 30% of reported cases it took the editor 4 weeks or more to inform author(s) that he or she was not interested in the manuscript and would not to send it to reviewers. There is a significant negative correlation (−0.18) between immediate rejection time and the journal’s impact factor, which indicates that journals with a higher impact factor have editors who work faster and editorial offices that are more professionally organized.Reviewers are generally blamed for long processing times, but our findings indicate that manuscript handling at editorial offices plays an important role too. If editors take a month for an immediate rejection decision, they are probably also slow in finding reviewers and processing referee reports.The average number of referee reports is about 2.2 in all scientific fields  between these factors. When the revision was experienced as more difficult, authors were also more satisfied with the improvement. Regarding the difficulty experienced, revision processes were perceived as easiest in Mathematics and Computer sciences and in Public health (2.6), and as most difficult in Economics and Business (3.3). Regarding the experienced improvement of the manuscript as a result of the revision, authors from Social sciences, Economics and Business, and Humanities reported somewhat higher figures (3.8 and 3.9) compared to the other scientific fields (3.7).There is a small positive correlation (0.07) between the difficulty experienced regarding the referee reports and the impact factor of the journal. Thus, reviewers of more highly ranked journals tend to make somewhat greater demands on the authors. The degree of improvement experienced regarding the manuscript is not significantly related to impact factor.The time from the first submission date to the final decision date is not only influenced by the time the manuscript is at the editorial office or being reviewed, but also by the time authors take to revise their manuscript. It is therefore important to look also at the duration of the revision time. Table Table Regarding the relationship between the journal’s impact factor and the time authors take to revise their manuscript, we expected authors who received a revise-and-resubmit from a high-level journal to be more motivated to complete the revision of their manuscript quickly. However, no significant correlation was found between revision time and the journal’s impact factor.The SciRev questionnaire gives authors the opportunity to provide an overall rating of the review experience on a scale from 0 (very bad) to 5 (excellent); see Table To determine how the various factors might affect the satisfaction of authors with the peer review process, we turn to the results of multivariate analyses , the sign and significance of the main effects stay the same. The interaction analysis shows that the negative effect of a longer duration of the first review round and the negative effect of more review rounds are less profound for accepted papers. Hence it seems that authors are willing to accept extensive revision work if this is rewarded with the acceptance of their paper. At the same time, they seem especially disappointed if the manuscript is still rejected after a long review process.The negative interaction between a paper being accepted and the number of referee reports indicates that authors of rejected papers may consider a higher number of reports as a sign that their paper was taken seriously and might be content with extensive feedback. For obvious reasons, authors of accepted papers are more positive when the journal has a higher impact factor. Authors from English-speaking countries are less negative about the peer review process when their paper is accepted and when they receive more referee reports but find a long process more problematic. This might reflect that they have higher expectations that their paper will be accepted and that the peer review process will be short and efficient compared to authors from non-English-speaking countries.When the duration of the first review round is longer, or when the impact factor of the journal is higher, authors are more concerned about a higher number of review rounds. In those cases, they might expect a smooth continuation of the process and be more disappointed when this proves not to be the case. A longer duration of the first review round is considered less negative by authors who receive more referee reports.The motivations authors give for their rating of the peer review process on SciRev.sc contain important qualitative information on author experiences. We analyzed these motivations and registered the author’s major concern(s). A first important observation is that about half (918) of the 1879 comments is positive. Many authors, in particular of accepted papers, are satisfied with the process and express their gratitude in their motivations. Of the 961 comments with a negative connotation, 371 (39%) express concerns about the duration of the review process. This aspect of long review duration is included in the quantitative outcomes and has been discussed in the preceding sections.A more informative source of discontent, mentioned 437 times (45%), concerns the role of editors and editorial offices. Poor communication of editors/offices—in particular not reacting to information requests—are a major source of frustration mentioned by authors. We received reports of authors who waited over 6 months without hearing anything of the journal or receiving reactions to information requests. Also editors who ‘hide’ behind reviewers and do not take an independent position vis-à-vis them are perceived as problematic. In particular when referee reports are contradictory—as often happens—it is important that editors provide guidance and indicate the comments on which authors should focus in their revision.Poor quality of referee reports is mentioned in 141 (15%) of the critical comments. Referee reports are often perceived to be superficial, contradictory, unreadable, ask unreasonable modifications, or convey the impression that the reviewer did not read or understand the paper. Some other issues mentioned are the addition of completely new comments in the second review round, the theft of ideas, or asking for unnecessary references.In this paper we study various aspects of the peer review process on the basis of 3500 review experiences reported in the last 3 years on the SciRev.sc website. Aspects discussed include the first response time (duration of the first review round), total review duration , the immediate rejection time, the time authors take for their first revision (revision time), the number, quality, and difficulty of referee reports received, and the overall rating of the process.We find considerable variation between the ten scientific fields distinguished. Whereas the reported first response time is 8–9 weeks for Medicine and Public health, it is 11–14 weeks in Natural sciences, Engineering, Psychology, and General journals and 16–18 weeks in Economics and Business, Social sciences, Mathematics and Computer sciences, and Humanities Table .The long duration of the peer review process is often blamed on reviewers taking much time to complete their reports. However, our figures indicate that inefficient editorial processes are also important. The reported immediate rejection time Table , which iThe total time between submission of a manuscript and the final decision of the editor is not only influenced by the time reviewers take to submit their reports and the time editorial offices take to handle the manuscript, but also by the time authors take to revise and resubmit their manuscript Table . In thisP = −0.29), total review duration (P = −0.27), and immediate rejection time (P = −0.18), all indicating that review processes of more highly ranked journals are more efficient. We also found a small but significant positive correlation (P = 0.08) between experienced difficulty of the referee reports and impact factor, indicating that reviewers of more highly ranked journals are somewhat more demanding.Most characteristics of the peer review process studied are related to the journal’s impact factor. More highly ranked journals have a shorter duration of the first review round  also less bothered by a longer duration of the first review round and by more than one review round. We also find that authors rate the process more positive if they receive more referee reports, in particular after a long first review round and when the manuscript is rejected. This indicates that authors appreciate the work of reviewers and the feedback given on their manuscripts. Compared to authors from non-English-speaking countries, those from English-speaking countries are generally less satisfied with the process, particularly when their manuscript is rejected or in case of more than one review round. This suggests that authors from English-speaking countries have higher expectations of the peer review process.


Dear friends,It is with great satisfaction that we deliver one more issue of the Brazilian Journal ofCardiovascular Surgery (BJCVS).th anniversary we are deeply restructuring the BJCVS.This has been a special year for all of us of the Editorial Board, besides celebratingour 30Sociedade Brasileira deCirurgia Cardiovascu lar (SBCCV), we decided that the administrative systemof the BJCVS should be directly managed by the SBCCV, which allowed a deep and systemicview of the journal and, measures could be taken, to reorganize the edition system andthe administrative process.In July 2015, during a meeting of the Board of the After a year under this new management system, we can say that things are beingorganized. The change in nomenclature was formalized, the BJCVS can now be found on theThomson Reuters website by its name in English: Brazilian Journal of CardiovascularSurgery. All of you can access the website and enjoy the performance of your article inthis database, from which the impact factor (IF) is calculated.http://goo.gl/VBhrgi, click "Sign inWeb of Sciences", fill out the form or do log in, with your name and password.You just need to enter the link: On the next page, go to "Basic Search", type the journal name in English and select theindex: Publication Name and "SEARCH". The articles appear in chronological order fromthe newest to the oldest, but there is a floating box that allows severalpossibilities.Browsing the page, you will find a lot of important information, such as number ofcitations and viewing statistics.As we want that BJCVS become known in many different strata, we updated our presence inall indexing bases. All failures in the editorial processes were identified and remediedby implementing a work schedule involving the chief editor, associate editors,reviewers, authors and the entire team of the BJCVS and SBCCV, with the responsibilityof strict adherence to deadlines.A checklist to optimize productivity was prepared, ensuring the reduction of time betweenmanuscript submission and article publication.Aimed at internationalization, we are working to bring the BJCVS to internationalstandards and, from July, the authors must submit their manuscripts through the"ScholarOne" system, a platform used by the major journals in the world, a tool with asimple interface that will make it easier for authors and to editorial board, as well asallowing speeding up the entire review process. The BJCVS has now a blog withinterviews, publication of interesting articles and works related to cardiovascularsurgery together with tips for publications.Despite many positive changes, there are still challenges to be overcome, such as toincentive the graduation and post-graduation institutions, encourage the authors topublish their scientific productions in the BJCVS, steadying our scientific andeducational nature, among other important actions. We are convinced that all effortsmade until now and those still to come, will bring good medium-term results, as theincreased visibility of the BJCVS, with increased number of readers and citations, andconsequently, increase of the "Thomson Reuters", IF. We would like to give specialthanks the Board of the SBCCV that, at all times, are partners in our great fight, andin particular, the Editorial Board of the BJCVS, the authors, volunteers and reviewers,who work with primacy to give for the readers what is best in scientific production ofour specialty.We are proudly working to pave the way for the next 30 years of the BJCVS; after all, weare still the only Scientific Journal on Cardiovascular Surgery, with IF in the SouthernHemisphere!We expect that the same enthusiasm permeates all our partners, because the most visiblepart of the work of each of us focuses on the BJCVS, our visiting card around theworld!Kind regardsDomingo M. Braile1Editor-in-Chief - BJCVS


This article aims to introduce a special issue on “Scientometrics of peer review”, which collects papers originally presented at workshops and conferences organised by the COST ACTION TD1306 “New frontiers of peer review”. Peer review is the cornerstone of science and is one of the underlying processes that bring about publication traces that are at the heart of bibliometric studies. Unfortunately, despite its importance, quantitative studies on peer review are still poorly developed, often due to lack of data. The issue aims to promote the establishment of peer review as an interdisciplinary field of research and stimulate further quantitative research. Scientometrics is an ideal publication venue for this research.Peer review is the cornerstone of science, whose quality and efficiency depends on a complex, large-scale collaboration process. In case of Scientometrics and quantitative studies of science in general, peer review is one of the underlying processes that bring about publication traces that are at the heart of bibliometric studies. Indeed, peer review as a social process has attracted research interests also in the scientometrics community. For instance, research looked at the relationship of peer review and bibliometric indicators . This Action included various project meetings, including three workshops, respectively held at the Corvinus University of Budapest, October 2014, the University of Lisbon, January 2015, the ETH Zurich, March 2015, the University of Split, June 2015, at Athens, November 2015, at the University of Valencia, March 2016 and the Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, on March 2017. A selection of the best contributions was made among about 50 papers which have been presented. The COST Action has supported OA fees for all accepted articles.The issue is supported by the COST ACTION TD1306 “New frontiers of peer review” (


Based on relative population size and burden of disease, emergency care publication outputs from low- and middle-income regions are disproportionately lower than those of high-income regions. Ironically, outputs from regions with higher publication rates are often less relevant in the African context. As a result, the dissemination of and access to local research is essential to local researchers, but the cost of this access  remains unknown. The aim of this study was to describe access to African emergency care publications in terms of publisher-based access (open access or subscription) and alternate access (self-archived or author provided), as well as the cost of access.We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study using all emergency medicine publications included in Scopus between 2011 and 2015. A sequential search strategy described access to each article, and we calculated mean article charges against the purchasing power parity index (used to describe out-of-pocket expense).We included 666 publications from 49 journals, of which 395 (59.3%) were open access. For subscription-based articles, 106 (39.1%) were self-archived, 60 (22.1%) were author-provided, and 105 (38.8%) were inaccessible. Mean article access cost was $36.44, and mean processing charge was $2,319.34. Using the purchasing power parity index it was calculated that equivalent out-of-pocket expenditure for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors would respectively be $15.77, $10.44 and $13.04 for access, and $1,004.02, $664.36 and $830.27 for processing. Based on this, the corrected cost of a single-unit article access or process charge for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors, respectively, was 2.3, 3.5 and 2.8 times higher than the standard rate.One in six African emergency care publications are inaccessible outside institutional library subscriptions; additionally, the cost of access to publications in low- and middle-income countries appears prohibitive. Publishers should strongly consider revising pricing for more equitable access for researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Given the stark differences in emergency care resource requirements and availability between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, it is important that African emergency care research is both conducted and disseminated in accessible format within Africa. Evidence-based care from emergency care research conducted elsewhere often does not apply directly in the African context as the former assumes access to resources that does not translate to the latter.2The fact that around three-quarters of African emergency care publications are published in international journals suggests a necessarily high rate of collaboration – indeed 40% of African emergency care publications included authors from outside Africa, while only 12% of collaboration came from other African countries.What do we already know about this issue?Open access publication was founded on the principle that access to research should be universal. Despite this, universal access is not yet a given everywhere.What was the research question?What access (cost or otherwise) do African researchers have to African emergency care-related publications?What was the major finding of the study?One in six African emergency care publications are inaccessible to Africanresearchers due to firewalls and cost.How does this improve population health?Accessible research is a key contributor to a stable knowledge economy – better access means better knowledge translation, which impacts population health outcomes.We employed a cross-sectional study design, using retrospective, secondary published data from the Scopus database , supplemented by prospective data solicited from corresponding authors of a smaller cohort of these publications . We inclTo determine access to the sampled publications we used the following sequential search:We accessed all the respective journal websites, noting whether publications were either open access or subscription based. Article process charges (for open-access publications) and article access charges (for subscription-based publications) were also collected. Variations in cost, where different charges applied depending on different income regions, were collected as such.We undertook a keyword search (using publication title and author list) using Google, PubMed Central and the following commercial repositories: ResearchGate, Mendeley, and Academia.edu for self-archived copies of either publisher or post-print versions of the subscription-based publications. The publisher version of a publication is the version that is published on the official journal website following copy-editing. The post-print version of a publication is the final manuscript that was accepted for publication following peer-review, but prior to copy-editing. We did not include a search of the torrent site Sci-Hub, given that it would automatically obtain any requested publication not yet in its repository through a non-transparent, widely-considered controversial process (see “Discussion”).8Finally, for any subscription-based, un-archived publications, we sent an email request to respective corresponding authors to share an authorized version of their publication. Articles were then checked and categorized as communicable, non-communicable, injury- or policy-themed publications to provide perspective on publication themes. A hypothetical corrected charge, using the World Health Organization (WHO) purchasing power parity (PPP) index was calculated on article process and access charges.2-test to test associations between categorical variables  with a p value less than 0.05 accepted as significance. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was provided to describe precision between continuous variables .We analyzed data using Microsoft Excel  and they are presented as proportions and tables. Article access and process charges are provided in U.S. dollars ($) and described by the mean and standard deviation. We used XE for currency conversions.2=12.46, p<0.01). The difference in access between self-archived publications and those not found was also significant . But the difference in access between publications provided by the corresponding author and those where the author did not respond was not significant .Not all journals charged for article processing or access. The mean article access and process charges by journals that charged for these were $36.44 (standard deviation of $6.05) from 36 journals, and $2,319.34 (standard deviation of $869.90) from 41 journals. The corrected cost of a single-unit article access or process was 2.3, 3.5 and 2.8 times higher than the standard rate, respectively, for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors. This is graphically presented in African Journal of Emergency Medicine, published 117 (17.6%) articles – both the single largest contributor to the sample and the cheapest, given that it also charged no article process fees. Authors from South Africa (high-middle income) were eligible for a full article process-charge waiver from one journal and a reduced charge from another one. Authors from Ghana (low-middle income) were eligible for a full article process charge waiver from 15/42 (35.7%) journals and a reduced charge from another two. Authors from Tanzania (low income) were eligible for a full article process-charge waiver from 16/42 (38.1%) journals and a reduced charge from another one. The Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters ($104.57), Western Journal of Emergency Medicine  and the Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock ($600). Of the subscription-based journals, only Traumatology Journal, an acute psychiatry journal, provided article access less than the charges described in the table ($11.95).Discounts and waivers were applied by some journals with regard to article process charges. Thirteen (26.5%) journals exclusively published open access, with a further 29 (59.2%) offering the option to publish open-access options in a subscription-based journal. Of the 13 fully open-access journals, four charged no article processing fee. Articles published via these four journals made up 18.2% (121 articles) of the entire sample, of which one, the 2=3.24, p=0.07). Non-African first authors’ publications were more likely to be found elsewhere  but again the difference was not significant . Non-African first authors were also more likely to provide their publications on request but the difference was not significant . African and non-African first authors were respectively responsible for 70.3% (468) and 29.7% (198) of all publications. The majority of publications were either injury-themed, 40.7% (271), or policy-themed, 39.9% (266). Of the small number of African emergency care articles published between 2010 and 2015, around one in six publications were cost-prohibitive. The cost of accessing subscription-based publications is likely to be prohibitive, even for South Africa, a higher-middle income country. It is telling that only one journal out of 36 provided access charges within the out-of-pocket scope of any of the three African countries. For African emergency care to grow, increased research output is essential to fuel its knowledge economy. Only a small number of higher learning institutions on the continent currently offer training in EM, of which only two offer dedicated research degrees.13Van Hoving et al. reported that 58% of African emergency care researchers struggled frequently with publication access, suggesting that local emergency care researchers are unable to make do given poor access and the significantly higher out-of-pocket expense related to publication.Open-access publications (largely contributed to by African first authors) made up the bulk of publications, while self-archiving and author-provided publications were fewer. It is interesting to note that policy-themed publications made up nearly half of all non-African first author publications, suggesting that non-African first authors’ main research contribution appears to be deriving emergency care-related policy – something one would have expected to be more within local authors’ remit. The study did not specifically consider whether non-African first authors collaborated on policy publications with local authors. It is, however, not unusual for publications regarding African matters (including policy) to shun African authors. Ironically, a recent World Bank/ Elsevier collaboration regarding African publication prowess in science, technology, engineering and mathematics did not include any African authors.15Burns and Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters included the second and fourth most African emergency care publications between 2010 and 2015, respectively.19There were very few communicable and non-communicable disease-themed publications compared with injury-themed publications . Injury appears to be a particular research focus in Africa: the WHO’s Decade of Action for Road Safety started in 2011 and this will have had a tangible impact in the region on both policy and publication priority.Science revealed that Sci-Hub was widely used in low- and middle-income regions, such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, but not so much in sub-Saharan Africa.An article about access to scientific work for authors from low- and middle-income countries would not be complete without a brief discussion about article access using the torrent site, Sci-Hub. As mentioned in the “Methods” section, we did not include Sci-Hub in our search criteria. It is likely that we would have been able to access the majority of subscription-only articles there. However, it remains a highly controversial route of article access.There were a number of limitations of this study. As we used a convenience sample, the sample was small and unpowered. It is also possible that published research was shared with local emergency care researchers that was not traceable through an Internet-search strategy. The WHO PPP index is based on household expenditure, which in turn is affected by relative market prices, exchange rates, wages, interest rates, etc., of which purchasing article access or processing is but one small element. However, we felt that using an index that took into account a person’s basic needs (as represented by household expenditure) would provide relevant context. It is true that purchasing power is constantly in flux, although for most African states it hasn’t changed much compared to the dollar over the last five years.9This study does not account for access initiatives such as Hinari, a WHO initiative set up along with a number of major publishers to enable journal access to low- and lower-middle income countries. Hinari and the majority of the other initiatives, however, require institutional access, excludes higher-middle income countries  and does not assist with article-process charges. Furthermore, Hinari’s own research shows that the service is not accessible in the very countries it aims to support.Finally, our search for accessible versions of articles could have been improved if the open access search engines, Unpaywall and Open Access Button, had been used.In conclusion, nearly half of African emergency care publications would be inaccessible without local university-library access. As a result, researchers without library access must be content with searching for self-archived publications online or contacting authors for a copy, as the cost of accessing these publications through article-access charges is prohibitive. Given the renewed focus on improving emergency care in low- and middle-income settings this may prove to be highly significant. Currently, low-and middle-income populations, including those in Africa, make up around 85% of the world’s population, of which the vast majority will have similar access problems.


In June 2007, the first four manuscripts were published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health (CAPMH). In its early years, CAPMH was the first open access online journal in the field of child mental health. This innovative idea was funded by a grant from the German Research Foundation  for several years. To date, 9 years later, CAPMH has proven to be a success story by having reached an official Thomson Reuters impact factor of 2.134. This seems to be the right moment to describe achievements of CAPMH over the past years, and to also take a look into the future of a new structure of CAPMH.The European Union Competitiveness Council  announced an update on HORIZON 2020 in May 2016, agreeing to “support a transition to immediate open access as the default by 2020, using the various models possible and in a cost-effective way, without embargoes or with as short as possible embargoes, and without financial and legal barriers, taking into account the diversity in research systems and disciplines.”, meaning that the results of publically funded research should be free for anyone to access and re-use the data, and not be placed under embargo. The Council’s recommendations are not legally binding, however a strong recommendation towards open access is clearly evident, with an aim to have all scientific articles freely accessible by 2020. According to Web of Science, there has been a steady growth of open access publications over the last view years in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Along with this general growth of online publications, CAPMH has seen a steady growth of submissions and publications over the years. While 16 manuscripts were published in Volume 1 in 2007, 55 were published in 2015. The average time from acceptance to publication in 2016 was on average 15 days. This fast turnaround can be achieved by the online structure of the journal, in which manuscripts are not constrained to be published within issues. Most highly cited publications since 2013 as stated by Web of Science included a study on suicidal behaviors in adolescents from France [International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions (IACAPAP). In cooperation with IACAPAP, the European Association for Forensic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychology and other involved Professions (EFCAP) and the International Society for the Study of Self Injury (ISSS), several special series have been published, including some of the most highly accessed manuscripts on CAPMH.The journal has benefited from cooperating with several organizations throughout the past years. Since 2013, CAPMH has been the official journal of the CAPMH has always aimed to publish high quality clinical and research papers from around the world. Support of unusual research initiatives from low- to middle income countries, as well as international, interdisciplinary networking initiatives are especially important to the journal culture of CAPMH. For example, a study on nail biting and psychiatric disorders in children from Iran  has beenWe would like to thank the members of the Editorial Board, who have supported the development of CAPMH throughout the years. After receiving the Impact Factor, the editorial team is now faced with new challenges, which call for the need of restructuring the journal. Special thanks go to Prof. Christian Kieling, who has served as an Associate Editor from South-America for many years and has also facilitated the liaison with IACAPAP. We would also like to thank all members of the Editorial Board who are stepping down and are looking forward with our new and remaining members.A warm welcome goes to our new Associate Editors: Alka Ahuja, Rebecca Groschwitz, Takahiko Inagaki, Ferdinand Keller, Kavitha Pasunuru, and Paul Plener, as well as our Liaison Editor for EFCAP Cyril Boonmann. A new Liaison Editor for IACAPAP will be nominated at IACAPAP, Calgary Meeting in September 2016. Special thanks for their continuous support the journal goes the senior editors of CAPMH Jacinta Tan Jacinta Tan, Lutz Goldbeck, and Lim Choon Guan.We are looking forward to many more productive years of CAPMH and would like to invite all researchers and clinicians in the field to submit their valued work to the journal.Prof. Joerg M. Fegert (Editor-in-Chief) and Dr. Benedetto Vitiello (Deputy Editor).


Recently, the editorial office of Zoological Research (ZR) received a statement from Prof. Shu-Yi Zhang regarding his authorship of an old publication  in ZR s, and givEditorial Office of Zoological ResearchStatement from Dr. Shu-Yi ZhangI write to you regarding the research report entitled "Piscivorous Habit and Echolocation Sound of Myotis ricketti at Fangshan, Beijing" 2003, 24(4): 265-268, of which I'm listed as one of the two co-corresponding authors. When the manuscript was submitted from Beijing to Zoological Research, I was carrying out a long-term investigation on SARS outbreak in Southern China, and was not informed of the manuscript submission. I did not participate in the drafting of this manuscript; therefore, I would like to withdraw my authorship of this article. Otherwise, I will not bear any responsibilities of data or words in this research report. Shu-Yi Zhangszhang@syau.edu.cnCollege of Animal Science and Veterinary MedicineShenyang Agricultural UniversityReplies from the other authors of this articleProfessor Zhang's request seems very reasonable to me, and I support it. Because the paper is in Chinese (which I cannot read), I was not aware of it either. I appreciate Dr, Ma's generosity in including me as an author, but because I was unaware of the paper, I should not be included as an author either".The ZR editorial office sent Dr. Shu-Yi Zhang's letter to all authors of this article. Dr. Bing Liang  and Dr. Gareth Jones  expressed their support to Dr. Zhang's request of withdrawing his authorship. In his e-mail to ZR editorial office, Dr. Jones wrote "I apologize to those authors who did not read the draft before the submission. Therefore, I would like to fully respect the authors' requests to remove their authorship from this paper".Dr. Jie Ma (Harvard University), the first author of this article, replied that "


Evolution, Medicine and Public Health (EMPH) from Stephen Stearns to Charles Nunn. It occurred on 1 January 2017. As part of this transition, we anticipate some turnover in the editorial board, for it coincides with the terms of our first group of Associate Editors. We thank all members of the editorial board for helping to grow the journal and for ensuring a rigorous review process that quickly delivers high-quality feedback to authors of submitted manuscripts. We also thank the many authors for submitting their best work to EMPH, and the referees for their constructive reviews. Finally, we thank the editorial and production team at Oxford University Press (OUP) for their efforts to keep us all moving forward in our service to the journal and the academic community, and for keeping the EMPH website populated with fresh and professionally formatted papers.We are happy to announce the transition in the Editor-in-Chief of OUP waived publication fees from 2012 through 2015. When we began to charge publishing fees in 2016, we saw a predictable decline in submissions, yet we continued to attract an outstanding set of manuscripts for consideration. In addition, our acceptance rate in 2016 held steady at about 56%. All of the accepted papers are Open Access and thus available free-of-charge on the EMPH website.We were also happy to see an impressively diverse set of Research Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, and Clinical Briefs published in 2016. The areas of medical science in which evolutionary thinking is already strong—cancer, antibiotic resistance and the hygiene hypothesis—are all areas that we would like to see better represented in the journal. However, their relative scarcity is actually testament to the success of evolutionary thinking in those areas—reviewers and editors at more established journals now accept the importance of evolutionary perspectives in these areas, leading to fewer submissions to EMPH. Thus, our inability to attract the best papers in some areas is actually a signal that the broader purpose of EMPH and the International Society for Evolution, Medicine and Public Health (ISEPMH) is succeeding.Nunn’s goals as Editor-in-Chief are to increase the number of submissions while maintaining the high quality of articles accepted for publication, and to ensure that EMPH continues to cover the breadth of topics in evolutionary medicine. Working with OUP, we shall continue offering a world-class publishing venue—i.e. constructive reviews delivered quickly, with efficient movement of accepted papers into publication by the production department. EMPH is emerging as the “go-to” journal for top-notch research in evolutionary medicine, with an international following. To continue this growth, it is important for members of ISEMPH to submit their best work to EMPH, to participate actively as reviewers, to engage with our published articles and to cite them in forthcoming papers. Good science properly applied reduces suffering and saves lives. That’s what we want to publish.


BDJ Open, the new open-access, online-only journal from the British Dental Association (BDA) and Nature Publishing Group.The launch of a new journal is always an exciting moment and it gives me great pleasure to be writing this at the beginning of One of the consequences of online publication has been the advent of universal access to information through the Internet. No longer is access confined to the delivery of paper copies, and what has dawned has been the realisation that research can be shared more widely than ever before. In turn this opens the possibility of making speedier advances in science and medicine by connecting researchers, their work and their findings for the benefit of mankind. However, there are also drawbacks. One fundamental problem is veracity. How can we maintain quality? The peer-review function of journals safeguards this as far as possible, and the answer has been to extend this into the development of open-access journals. Here the premise is that the cost of the publishing process is borne by the author and not by the reader. But this is not ‘vanity’ publishing, at least certainly not as far as reputable journals are concerned, because the author’s work is only accepted and published after the same established process of peer review. It is not a question that merely being prepared to pay gets you published.BDJ Open will publish) to be made easily accessible and free to view. BDJ Open is designed to address this need, and consequently it is not a subscription journal. Instead, as per the Gold Open Access model, authors of accepted papers only (or their institutions) will pay an article-processing charge (APC).Across society we also see a drive for more ‘openness’. In research terms this is reflected by increasing mandates from those funding research for the outputs of research  is constrained by the amount of content and number of papers it can publish. BDJ Open has no such confines and is open, as the name suggests, to research papers across the dental field. To put this in context we currently receive in excess of 900 submissions a year to the BDJ, yet we have the capacity to publish only about 150. A quick calculation reveals a ‘rejection’ rate of about 80%, but many of these papers are turned down not because they are substandard but only because they are not appropriate for the BDJ’s established content and readership. Our new ability to offer a possible route to publication for many of these papers means that we no longer have to divert them to other journals; we can instead keep them in the BDJ’s portfolio of knowledge.The world of dental research is very wide and using conventional means only the BDJ Open?Open access—all articles are freely available and authors retain copyright. This enables you to reach all clinicians and oral health researchers worldwide, ensuring your article is far-reaching. All BDJ Open articles are published under a Creative Commons License.Competitive turnaround times—Online submission, rapid review and online publication times.Reputation—The journal is the sister journal of the BDJ, which was established in 1881. BDJ Open is published in partnership with the BDA and Nature Publishing Group.Visibility—Content published in BDJ Open has the potential to reach dental researchers, medical and dental clinicians, industry and decision-makers globally. Readers have the option to sign up for free table of contents e-alerts, ensuring additional exposure for authors.Article-level metrics—Using Altmetric.com, readership data and citation information, authors can see how their research is being used and commented on across the scholarly literature, the wider internet and social networks.No format limits—We have removed the restrictions of print to word limits, colour and figure charges. All articles that conform to the required editorial standards of the journal will be published regardless of length or supplementary content.Why should you choose to publish your research in BDJ Open when deciding where to submit your next research article. You can do so online at http://mts-bdjopen.nature.com at any time. If you have any questions about this new journal, please contact me via our editorial office at bdjopen@nature.com.We invite you to consider BDJ Open is an exciting new development for the BDA, our publishing partner, Nature Publishing Group, and, we earnestly believe, for the dental world and outside world in general. With open access fast becoming recognised and validated we feel that this is of great benefit, is best practice in publishing and is a vital next step in the rapid development of a continuing and fascinating journey.In summary, the launch of


Dear Editor,www.sbu.se/globalassets/eng_metodboken_160808.pdf. The report has no legal status. It is a scientific health technology assessment. Therefore, it is not expected to have any direct legal impact.In response to Offiah et al. , the SweIt is not customary to use peer review by specialist organisations in other countries for governmental investigations. This report has been extensively reviewed by our internal quality assurance board and by external experts, and has been carefully scrutinised by our board of directors as well as our scientific advisory boards. Therefore, additional international peer review would have been unlikely to provide relevant new information to change the report’s conclusions and motivate the considerable delay.http://www.sbu.se/en/publications/sbu-assesses/traumatic-shaking--the-role-of-the-triad-in-medical-investigations-of-suspected-traumatic-shaking/.The English version of this report is published on our website: