Many factors influence selection of a target journal for publishing scientific papers, including “fit” within the journal’s scope, acceptance rate, readership, open access options, submission and publication costs, journal quality, and timeliness of publication. Timeliness of publication can be a critical factor affecting career development, but many journals are not transparent about turnaround times. Here we evaluated 49 journals publishing papers in zoological medicine and related fields between 2017 and 2022, and aggregated and examined distributions of turnaround time of journals that publicly provided the requisite data, in order to aid authors in selecting target journals that best meet their needs. Of 49 journals evaluated, 39 provided necessary dates for reconstructing turnaround times. Of these, median times to acceptance ranged from 37 to 338 days, and median times to publication ranged from 41 to 403.5 days. The percentage of papers published in greater than 1 year (“slow”) ranged from 0 to 57.1%, while the percentage of papers published in under 6 months (“timely”) ranged from 0.8 to 99.8%. Acceptance rates and times to first decision were available for only 22% and 20%, respectively, of journals evaluated. Results may prove useful for authors deciding where to submit their works, depending on how they prioritize the many factors involved. Selecting a target journal for a scientific manuscript can be a difficult decision. Important factors include the paper’s “fit” within the journal’s scope, likelihood of acceptance, target readership, open access options, submission and publication costs, a measure of journal quality such as impact factor, less easily quantified qualities such as review quality and editorial management, and timeliness of publication. Unfortunately, many journals and publishers are less-than-transparent about some of these factors—such as turnaround time and acceptance rate—leaving authors to rely on anecdotal and limited experiential information.Choosing a journal that does not meet one’s needs and expectations can be professionally detrimental, as producing peer-reviewed research within set time frames is important to career advancement in many fields. For instance, in zoological medicine  and other disciplines, publishing is important for students and early career professionals to compete successfully for internships and residencies, credentialing for specialty boards, job applications, and promotion and tenure decisions. Training programs often set expectations for number of publications within the time frame of the internship or residency as a condition of awarding certificates of completion, and academic institutions have expectations for scholarly productivity within a defined timeline in order to be considered for promotion and tenure, which can be particularly challenging for faculty with clinical service responsibilities to meet . Becausei.e., date received, date accepted, and date published) that allow for the determination of individual turnaround times. Aggregating turnaround times for many papers would allow for the generation of per-journal statistics that could be used by authors to refine their decision of which journal to target. Turnaround time statistics for over 80 journals that publish papers in fisheries science were recently provided  or even of veterinary medicine  are not included here because of their broader scope and their inclusion in a prior paper  reading lists from 2021 and 2022; these lists were supplemented with related journals in the field based on the authors’ knowledge , Past President of ACZM, 30 years in the field). The final list was comprised of 49 journals, including some that do not publish exclusively in the field of zoological medicine  if it was available. Dates were tabulated for each paper, generally back to the beginning of 2018. Where possible, we excluded publications that were not original research , on the assumption that such documents have inherently different turnaround times.For each journal, we accessed the webpage and/or PDFs of recently published papers and located publication history information (date accepted–date received) and time-to-publication (date published–date received) for each journal where information was available. Some papers list multiple publication dates —we always used whichever publication date came first .We examined distributions of time-to-acceptance . It is extremely unlikely that a peer-reviewed paper could legitimately be submitted and accepted on the same day. In fact, the authors consider that any acceptance or publication occurring in under 14 d is likely not reflective of the paper’s true timeline. To that end, we eliminated from further analysis any papers accepted or published in 14 d or less from the date received .Some papers reported inconceivably short time-to-acceptance or time-to-publication  reported date accepted and date published but not date received. The remaining nine journals generally reported only date published. One of these  claims an average time from submission to publication of less than 100 d , only content relevant to zoological medicine is considered as potential examination material. Here we assume that turnaround times do not substantially differ among papers of different topics in these journals. The designation of journals as primary source material for certification examinations could be expected to put a premium on publishing therein, both by diplomates providing content to build the body of zoological medicine literature for dissemination of knowledge to candidates and for question generation, and by candidates who might then have the happy chance of seeing an examination question sourced from their research. Such journals could also reasonably be expected to have a team of the most knowledgeable and dedicated associate editors and reviewers in the field, who can provide the most informed peer review to improve the final manuscript. Similar considerations would apply to other veterinary specialty colleges with publication requirements for credentialing, albeit a lesser number of publications required than ACZM.Journals in the ACZM and ECZM (ZHM) reading lists are selected by diplomates of the respective Colleges’ examination committees for their relevance to zoological medicine as determined through formal job task analyses and examination validation exercises. For journals on the reading lists that are not exclusively focused on zoological medicine  can adversely affect both turnaround times and impact factors. Open access can be a common desire, but high fees for open access can be a limiting factor by cutting into grant or personal funds, and have been implicated in leading to inequitable representation of authors from low-income countries  reading lists is only 0.7, with a range from 0 (or no impact factor designated) to 1.5. Neither ACZM nor ECZM (ZHM) take journal impact factor into account in candidate credentialing, and require only that candidates’ manuscripts “be published in a refereed journal”  “or” in ountries .Time to first decision may be the most relevant metric of journal editorial and reviewer efficiency, because it is less affected by author responsiveness to reviews. This metric, however, is even less frequently reported than times to acceptance and publication . Further, it does not account for quality of reviews. Review quality and unusually rapid turnaround times are concerns that have been raised particularly with respect to mega-journals and special issues with guest editors, where there may be apparent editorial bias and nepotistic behavior  and varyIt is important to acknowledge author responsibilities in ensuring a timely turnaround to publication, including following journal formatting guidelines in the initial submission, and promptly responding to reviews. Here we assume that timeliness and tardiness by authors was roughly equivalent among journals examined.In recent years, some journals have rendered “reject and resubmit” decisions unto reviewed papers that might historically have been tasked with “major revisions.” Early proponents of this alternative noted that potential benefits could include a quicker turnaround time and slightly better chance of publication . HoweverAs noted previously for fisheries journals , turnaroWe evaluated 49 journals that publish papers in zoological medicine and related fields, including those on the ACZM Annotated Suggested Reading List and the ECZM (ZHM) Reading List, and analyzed turnaround times for the 39 of those journals publicly providing the requisite data. Additionally, we have aggregated impact factors, and, where publicly available, acceptance rates and times to first decision. Results will aid authors in selecting target journals that best meet their needs and expectations.10.7717/peerj.15656/supp-1Supplemental Information 1All 29,054 individual articles analyzed.Click here for additional data file.


Sedative agents are among the most commonly used drugs in critical care medicine. Given the choice of agents available and the varied backgrounds of the clinicians using them, it is not surprising that individual practitioners have their own preferences. Nevertheless, it is important that the benefit/risk ratio of all therapeutic interventions should be frequently (re)assessed and use and preferences adjusted when indicated.A meta-analysis by Kotani et al. , recentlFollowing publication, we received a considerable number of letters from readers who were unhappy about this publication; several, but not all, were accepted for publication. Given the strength of feeling expressed, we felt it important to briefly address the issues raised. There were several types of reaction, some more ‘visceral’ than others. Some readers clearly just disagreed with the findings and attempted to demerit the publication by any means. Others provided a more constructive critique, expressing concerns about the heterogeneity of the patient populations and the different durations of follow-up in the included trials, among others. For the ‘visceral’ reactions, we cannot do much, except acknowledge that all practitioners have preferences or even biases about their sedative of choice. It is human nature to ‘prefer’ information that supports our viewpoint and to tend to ignore or downplay other data; but the principles of scientific publishing require that all papers that are scientifically sound and relevant are made available, so that individuals have access to all data from all sides of an argument and can draw their own conclusions.Scientific integrity and rigor are key to this process, and all questions relative to scientific quality must be taken seriously. This is the reason why we reopened the file on this article to re-read the reviewers’ comments. As for the majority of articles we receive, the reviewers had diverging opinions about the paper and stressed that its publication would raise some intense debate and discussion. We also invited an expert statistician from our editorial board to reassess the statistical analysis. After careful review, his conclusion could not be clearer: ‘I find no reason to re-evaluate the methodological and statistical review submitted initially, nor is there reason to take further action regarding the published article.’ We have therefore decided to maintain the publication as it is, with the published letters and responses from the authors –4, enablEvery drug has advantages and undesirable effects and, for many, this balance will vary according to multiple patient and process factors. The results of the article by Kotani et al.  do not m


Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN) is indexed in SCOPUS, PubMed, and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) in compliance with the relevant standards. As part of our efforts to be listed in MEDLINE and the Science Citation Index (SCI), we are committed to ensuring the transparency of our journal by adhering to the fourth version of these standards.Journals are published in accordance with submission guidelines, which adhere to publication ethics and policies. These policies are crucial in the expanding online publishing market, as they protect readers and authors from predatory practices, including slander, and ensure transparent disclosure of who publishes which materials and how . Four orThe introduction to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing states that publishers and editors are responsible for promoting accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of publishing . This isThe fourth version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing outlines 16 items pertaining to journal content, journal practices, organization, and business practices . Each itThe journal’s name should be original, and it should not cause authors and readers to misunderstand the journal’s publisher or its relationship to other journals.https://kjwhn.org) and is diligently working to bolster security [As website use has become more frequent, the contents of the guidelines regarding websites are more detailed in the fourth version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing than in the 3rd version released in 2018. Firstly, it was emphasized that website security must be strengthened to safeguard users from computer viruses and malicious software. To achieve this, it was declared that websites should, at a minimum, utilize “https” protocol instead of “http.” Moreover, it was asserted that websites ought to adhere to web standards and uphold the best ethical practices in content, presentation, and application. Additionally, it is essential to verify whether any information could mislead readers or authors, and to refrain from copying the website, design, or logo of other academic journals/publishers. In instances of copying, the original site must be disclosed [security .Adherence to the journal’s publication schedule is required except under exceptional circumstances . KJWHN ihttps://synapse.koreamed.org/LinkX.php?code=2102KJWHN) and the Korea Citation Index (https://kci.go.kr) and is archived in the National Library of Korea (http://nl.go.kr) [Journals and publishers should maintain electronic backups of journals and implement long-term digital preservation plans in case publication ceases . KJWHN cl.go.kr) .Publication copyright policies must be clearly stated on the journal’s website, and it is important to differentiate between the copyright terms of the content and the copyright of the website itself . KJWHN ihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and displays it on the website [The website must clearly explain license information, and if Creative Commons licenses are utilized, the license terms should also be linked to the appropriate site. A licensing policy for publishing manuscripts in third-party repositories should be in place. For instance, Wiley provides an article-sharing guideline, which offers recommendations for sharing articles on personal websites, blogs, and social media . KJWHN u website .Publication ethics encompasses the ethical guidelines that authors must adhere to and the policies required for publishing. These areas include authorship and contributorship policies, handling complaints and appeals, addressing allegations of research misconduct, managing conflicts of interest, ensuring data sharing and reproducibility, providing ethical oversight, respecting intellectual property, facilitating post-publication discussions, and implementing corrections and retractions . Among tIn instances where errors are identified in early access data prior to official publication, they are promptly corrected online and documented. Following publication, any corrections are published as a separate paper and linked to the original paper . KJWHN hIn the fourth version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, compared to the 3rd version, the detailed description of the peer review process has been strengthened. The information that should be provided on the website regarding peer review includes the following: whether or not the submitted manuscript undergoes peer review, who is responsible for conducting the peer review, all policies related to the review process, the final decision-making process for the manuscript and the individuals involved, and any exceptional cases of expert review. To ensure adherence to the review timeline, the submission and acceptance dates must be indicated on the paper approved for publication. If the review process is delayed, the author should be informed of the reason and given the option to withdraw the manuscript if they so choose . KJWHN ahttps://kjwhn.org [If online content is not freely accessible to everyone, such as subscription-based or paid papers, the method of access must be clearly explained, and the subscription fee must be specified if a print copy is available . KJWHN cjwhn.org .Ownership and management information must be disclosed on the website , and KJWJournals must have an editorial board or advisory board consisting of experts in the relevant subject area, and the names and affiliations of these members must be regularly reviewed and updated . KJWHN fPublication fees should be indicated, and information regarding waivers should be provided if an author fee waiver is available . KJWHN’sIf there is a business model or source of revenue , it should be stated on the website . KJWHN iJournals must specify whether or not they publish advertisements . CurrentAll marketing activities carried out on behalf of journals, including manuscript submissions, must be accurate and appropriate . InvitatAs previously noted, KJWHN is committed to adhering to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing standards, and continuously strives to improve in accordance with the updated principles. In addition, KJWHN will continue to comply with relevant standards to guarantee transparency in journal publication and will diligently continue to communicate with our readers and potential authors.


JMLA. This editorial provides a brief background on these concerns and introduces our policy.With the arrival of ChatGPT, the academic community has expressed concerns about how generative artificial intelligence will be used by students and researchers alike. After consulting policies from other journals and discussing among the editorial team, we have created a policy on the use of AI on submissions to  Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and applications have the potential to enhance how librarians and researchers work with information. On November 30, 2022, OpenAI publicly launched ChatGPT, a free web application known as a “chatbot” using AI to interact with people and generate responses to their queries . While cWith the arrival of ChatGPT, concerns about academic integrity quickly surfaced. Professors discovered students submitting papers generated by ChatGPT , and resScholarly publishers have likewise been affected by and monitoring the use of AI and ChatGPT within its ecosystem . Early sJournal editors, researchers, publishers, and the biomedical scientific community have begun to discuss the appropriate use of AI within research in order to establish policies on the use of AI for writing manuscripts and creation of images for publication. Among the issues currently being contested are: whether AI can be listed as an author ; the difJMLA was confronted with the use of AI in a manuscript submission early in 2023. A manuscript on the future of AI in medical libraries was submitted for consideration by the journal. At first glance, it seemed like a typical submission. However, the citations were the first clue that something was different. Two JMLA articles were cited; and while these citations had the proper volume and issue numbers, the articles did not exist. Upon a closer read of the manuscript, the broad, generalized statements signaled that the paper was not written by a human. We used the AI-detection tool provided by ChatGPT to confirm that it was “highly likely” that the manuscript and citations were written by AI. However, these AI-detection tools are not without fault, with prominent tools such as Turnitin reporting false positive rates as high as 4% [gh as 4% . In factgh as 4% . ReviewiJMLA. This policy (found on the JMLA site: https://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/AIsubmissionpolicy) will certainly change as this technology and its uses evolve. While JMLA's current policy calls for restrictions on the use of LLMs in the production of original content submitted to the journal, we recognize that these technologies have the potential to transform the discovery, processing, and synthesis of research. Indeed, it is the transformative potential of these tools that makes it imperative that they are utilized openly and transparently.After consulting policies from other journals and discussing among the editorial team, we have created a policy on the use of AI on submissions to Equally important is for librarians to conduct research using and on the use of these tools for the profession to learn, adapt, and grow with the technology. As editors we encourage authors to submit articles that depict the integration of LLMs and generative artificial intelligence software into information science research and the professional practice of health science librarians. Projects and initiatives along these lines are already underway. The National Library of Medicine currently uses AI to select indexing terms in PubMed , while rThe tasks highlighted in these examples  are core competencies of health information professionals. Twenty years ago, the ascendence of web-based information tools like Google and Wikipedia created angst among librarians that their skills and expertise would lose relevance for students and researchers. Yet over the course of the following two decades, the profession thoroughly integrated these tools into research and practice. Like Wikipedia and Google before it, we anticipate that LLMs, chatbots, and artificial intelligence software may become tools that librarians develop expertise in using to advance the research needs of their communities . We look


I joined Professor Khean Lee Goh's unit in 2003 when “I was a mere schoolgirl” as he liked to point out (I was 30 years old). At the time, I did not realize how privileged I was and how important a role he would play in my career. In the many of the tributes dedicated to him, there is a long list of the accolades he received. In this one, I wanted to highlight the things that were not written, that only some of us had the privilege to know…KL Goh had an inimitable persona. He was a born leader and people gravitated toward him. His passion for teaching was legendary and his unit has trained almost a quarter of Malaysia's gastroenterologists, not to mention surgeons and fellows who came from abroad. He was a visionary. It is no coincidence that he established one the earliest endoscopy units at University Malaya Hospital in Kuala Lumpur and introduced the first international live endoscopy workshop 30 years ago. In recognition, the GI Endoscopy unit was honored with the prestigious “Centre of Excellence” award by the World Digestive Endoscopy Organization in 2008, a position it holds until today. It was only fitting that we inaugurated an oration for this year's Endoscopy Workshop Khean Lee Goh Distinguished Lecture, which we were very grateful that he was able to attend in person.Helicobacter pylori. In addition, he contributed extensively to almost all fields related to gastroenterology and hepatology in Malaysia. He was a founder of the Malaysian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which evolved into a large organization hosting high‐quality scientific programs. Professor KL Goh was the congress president for APDW 2010, the first APDW congress held in Malaysia.He was an avid researcher. He received the Merdeka Award in Medicine  for his work on He had incredible work ethics, and one of my earliest memories at work was him trying to convince me the “joy” of waking up at 4 am every morning to write papers (I have to confess he did not achieve this aim). Although he was a senior consultant, he was there at almost every endoscopy list and the last to leave the clinic in spite of his heavy administrative duties and academic work. He was a classic case of leading by example. His fellows and staff adored him. He loved to teach medical students, for which he called it our “sacred duty.”There are so many things I want to share—his deadpan humor, how he loved to tease his staff and gave them pseudo English names , his quirky love for history and travel. He had an amazing memory for names and faces, not just professionals but also everyone in the biomedical industry, hospital staff at every level, and almost everyone he met.The last few years of illness were hard for us to watch but he is at peace now. We will fondly remember Professor Goh and his enduring legacy will always prevail…Rest in peace, Professor, my mentor, father figure, inspiration, and friend……Ida Hilmi‐Aequanimitas ‘After 25 years.’ 1914; 213)Live neither in the past nor in the future, but let each day's work absorb your entire energies, and satisfy your widest ambition. , he supported my regional colleagues and I who were budding “IBD‐ologists” in pioneering IBD education and Asian guidelines. He advocated for the initiation of Clinical IBD Forums, organized under the auspices of Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE). Leveraging on his constant support and enthusiasm, we have since successfully held four meetings in Penang (2014), Chiang Mai (2016), Cebu (2018), and Delhi (2022), respectively.Professor Goh served as President of APAGE and Asian Pacific Digestive Week Foundation (APDWF) from 2010–2014 and 2014–2018, respectively. It was with his contributions during his tenure that these organizations are now synonymous with excellence in gastroenterology education.JGHF Marshall & Warren Lecture on “Lessons Learnt from the Epidemiology of Helicobacter Pylori Infection in a Multiracial Asian Population in Malaysia” was delivered at APDW2017 in Hong Kong.In his busy academic life, he was a highly sought‐after speaker. At the WGO Distinguished Global Lecture APDW2015 in Taipei, he dealt with “Emerging GI and Liver Diseases in the Asia‐Pacific—Implications for Healthcare in the Region.” The His exemplary leadership unified followers and skeptics alike who join him in the mission of advancing regional education and research, two key areas closest to his heart. My work with him at APAGE was an enriching experience. I learnt a great deal from this truly remarkable gentleman, the virtues of diplomacy, patience, fortitude, and empathy.Professor KL Goh, we will miss you terribly.Choon Jin Ooi‐H Index of 81. He worked on issues that were very relevant for Asia pacific region and in that process it was very natural that when Wiley planned a new journal JGH Open, they needed an academician not only with impeccable credentials but also someone who had friends across the globe and no one else could have been better than Professor Goh. And his acquiescence to be the Editor in Chief for the newly launched JGH Open was a blessing for the journal. JGH Open, which started in 2017 with just 4 issues a year, moved very fast up the ladder to be a journal with 12 issues a year and that too within a period of 4 years. This was testament to the ability of Professor Goh to maintain a very fine balance between inclusiveness as well as the ability to select high‐quality articles, his guidance in shaping content, and his commitment to maintain rigorous standards. JGH Open was like a sapling, which required constant and absolute attention to detail if it was to survive in extreme competitive environment of medical journals. His dedication to the journal was exemplary and that paved the way for the growth of JGH Open. It was an everyday effort that we associate editors could feel and it was in the form of the promptness in handling submissions, responsiveness to authors and reviewers, and the overall commitment to the publication process. He often went above and beyond to provide constructive feedback or mentorship to authors.Professor Goh was an extraordinary academician and his contributions to the scholarly community have been inspiring and immense. His hard work and contributions to the academic community can by gauged by his formidable Google Scholar JGH Open got at its helm. No wonder that when impact factors were announced last week, JGH Open got its first impact factor (IF: 1.7), which is a wonderful start. As Sanjiv Mahadeva wrote on hearing the news of JGH Open getting an opening IF “A lot of this has been due to the efforts of the late Prof KL Goh, founding Editor‐in‐chief and we will always be grateful for his vision. I only wish he could have seen the fruition of his labour of love.”He had a marvelous way of leading the team of associate editors and the publishers, always very courteous, mindful of each one's time, trying to strike a subtle equilibrium between the aspirations of the publishers and the ambitions of the editorial team and ensuring that everyone enjoyed working with him. He was a gentleman to the core, extremely gracious and yet fully committed at the same time. Such a combination of extraordinary attributes is hard to get and that is what Vineet Ahuja‐Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation, of which he was the Chair at that time.My first contact with Professor KL Goh was quite late in life, in 2013, when I joined the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation (https://www.jghfoundation.org.au) as a Trustee from 2002 to 2016, including the last four years as its Chair. Professor Goh was a great leader, with an inimitable style characterized by a gentle and understated demeanor. He was deeply interested in fostering education and research in the field of gastrointestinal sciences in the Asia‐Pacific medical community. He embodied collegiality, welcoming all and creating links between clinicians in the region who could further research and improvements in GI care. He recognized appreciatively the contribution of all those involved in work of the Foundation, and passed on the credit to others for work that had in fact been done by him behind the scene.Professor KL Goh served the JGHF, he was involved in establishing a number of awards and supporting a range of projects around the Asia‐Pacific region. I vividly recall the meeting where I first proposed starting of a Young Clinician Investigator Programme as a one‐day pre‐conference activity at the annual APDW meetings to teach the young participants, mostly trainees, the basics of research methodology. He immediately supported the idea though it meant a significant expense on part of the Foundation, and saw to it that it was implemented. He made sure to take time out to attend some of the sessions at the first iteration, and to provide his feedback.During his time with the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which he sincerely believed in as providing a forum to gastroenterologists in the Asia‐Pacific region for publishing their work. He was always open to new ideas and experimentation. Thus, with the advent of the author‐pay model for publication and realizing the need for this for the Asia‐Pacific gastroenterology community, he worked closely with Wiley to help set up the JGH Open, an open‐access journal. He decided to give up his position as Chair of the Foundation ahead of the scheduled time, to work toward the success of this journal and give it his undivided attention. He nurtured the JGH Open as a parent does a baby. He regularly implored the Foundation for support to it through funding the publication fees for articles submitted to it for the initial few years. This, we believe, was one of the steps that paved the way for the eventual success of this endeavor.He was deeply interested in the progress of the My last meeting with him was in late 2022 in Kuala Lumpur, when the Foundation decided to felicitate him for his contributions. He was his usual self, sharing several thoughts to further the causes that he believed in.His gentle nature, kindness, and humor will be missed by everyone who knew him, including all of us at the Foundation.Rakesh Aggarwal‐


Since 2021, CSP has developed a series of activities and investments to improve itsstructure and internal processes As the first initiative of the celebrations, in July of this year, we launched the newCSP website, with several changes and new functionalities, responding to aspects relatedto indexing requirements and relations with authors and readers. The design is moreappealing and the navigability has become dynamic and interactive.Scientific journal websites play an important role, since they allow research results tobe accessed by anyone worldwide. Since 1998, when CSP joined the SciELO network, itsentire collection has been open access and free of charge for authors. Continuouspublication was adopted in 2016, when the journal became online-only. Even with theagility provided by digital publication, the organization in monthly issues wasmaintained, differentiating regular numbers from the thematic ones and thus facilitatingthe search.An aspect to be highlighted is the responsiveness of the new website. It can now adaptits layout to all devices, from desktop computers to tablets and smartphones. This isone of the most significant novelties of this new design: content can be read anywhereand by different readers profilers.The second important change was on the presentation page of each article. The formatfacilitates reading and makes the bibliographic references and illustrations referringto each excerpt of the manuscript accessible by a simple click. Citation indicators andmetrics of the articles, the so-called altmetrics, were also incorporated both into theusual indexers and into the data of accesses in different media.Many innovations of internal function of CSP are of interest to authors and consultants.Our entire collection can now be accessed not only through SciELO, but also on theservers of the Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation(ENSP/Fiocruz). We will also soon shut down the Article Evaluation and Management System. The electronic publicationprocess will be linked to the Open Journal System (OJS), which we hope to put on air assoon as the adaptations we deem necessary are completed.With the new website, we intend to expand the space for discussion and encourage greaterengagement of the scientific community and society as a whole. We seek to increase ourpresence on social networks, produce videos, stimulate activities aimed at scientificdissemination and, of course, present all this in an integrated and accessible way forthose who read our work. We have maintained our tradition of selecting images for eachissue. Each year we choose a thought-provoking and enchanting theme: street art,historical buildings of science, popular demonstrations, among others. A website is notjust a scientific article. It is a way of bringing qualified scientific information tothe public with beauty and art


The cost of academic publishing has increased substantially despite the ease with which information can be shared on the web. Open Access publishing is a key mechanism for amplifying research access, inclusivity, and impact. Despite this, shifting to a free-to-read publishing environment requires navigating complex barriers that vary by career status and publishing expectations. In this article, we investigate the motivations and preferences of researchers situated within our large research institution as a case study for publishing attitudes at similar institutions. We surveyed the publishing priorities and preferences of researchers at various career stages in STEM fields as they relate to openness, data practices, and assessment of research impact. Our results indicate that publishing preferences, data management experience and research impact assessment vary by career status and departmental approaches to promotion. We find that open access publishing is widely appreciated regardless of career status, but financial limitations and publishing expectations were common barriers to publishing in Open Access journals. Our findings shed light on publishing attitudes and preferences among researchers at a major R1 research institution, and offer insight into advocacy strategies that incentivize open access publishing. These publishing choices fuel the moral economy of scholarly publishing, wherein researchers provide content, editorial expertise, and peer review without monetary compensation. Author choices also impact the overall openness of research in a broader sense. They determine how reproducible experiments are by virtue of the transparency of methods and associated data presented in the work. Publishing venues often dictate who may be excluded from accessing results based on the cost of subscriptions. Published work reflects research being done at a given institution, as well as where a library's collection may choose to optimize subscriptions and purchases. This study examines the scholarly publishing preferences and motivations of STEM researchers at a large R1 institution. A deeper understanding of researcher priorities will allow librarians and publishing advocates to provide more impactful outreach and negotiate meaningful compromises with publishers in support of open content.Individual researcher journal selection motivations are still opaque. Authors may be motivated to choose select journals by disciplinary fit, cost of publishing, ease of submission, audience selection, or another unknown factor. Access costs for published content continues to outpace library budget allocations . Open AcThis rise in OA journal publishing has led to the creation of a new wave of OA journals with questionable editorial standards . “PredatThe components of open science, from open access  to data At research institutions, incentives range from broad policies such at the UC Systemwide Academic Senate OA Policy to modified licensing agreements with publishers . ModifieUnderstanding the barriers faced by authors in the publication process is essential. There have been a number of surveys examining open science broadly , open acAt our institution, we are closely watching new agreements with scientific publishers that represent a compromise between pay-to-publish models and standard subscription models. These agreements, dubbed “transformative agreements,” represent a top-down push for more openness within scientific publishing. Assessing those research outputs to gauge the efficacy of these new agreements is challenging. Presently, there is no central reporting system that tracks publications linked to the institution that could indicate immediate shifts in publishing habits as the result of new publishing agreements. Increased use of open science collaboration platforms like bioRxiv indicates enduring bottom-up interests in open science practice, but are even more difficult to track and record accurately .Our investigation assessed the output format and publishing perceptions of science researchers at our institution in order to determine motivations for publishing in preferred venues and at various levels of open access and, more broadly, to sharing other research outputs. We also examined the involvement of researchers in the publishing process, from editorial service to promotion on social media. We hope to use this assessment to build more effective open access advocacy strategies. Disciplines investigated cover the physical sciences, life sciences, health sciences, engineering, and mathematics. Faculty, research staff, post-doctoral researchers and graduate students responded to questions through both a detailed online survey and in-depth interview. Questions addressed respondents’ opinions on and adoption of open science practice, including data publishing and preprint publishing. A pre-registration of this study was submitted to Open Science Framework .While existing studies point to a methodologically sound, ethically completable, and scientifically insightful approaches, this study offers several novel opportunities. The first is a survey of a single university. This approach offers insights into research culture at a single location and provides useful data for future open science efforts on campus. The survey was expansively multi-disciplinary within the sciences. Researchers from across the life, physical, engineering, and health sciences, including the School of Medicine, were surveyed offering a nuanced picture of both the larger University research enterprise as well as distinct disciplinary research cultures. As a case study, examining the University of California, Los Angeles is particularly compelling since it is a public institution that shares similarities with public R1 institutions nationwide, and has strong consortial links to other University of California campuses. University of California campuses are well resourced and boast high enrollment – as such, they serve as a model for academic policies and spark global trends.22.1Researchers approached gathering respondent data in two phases. The first phase involved a detailed online survey using the Qualtrics platform. At the end of this survey, respondents were asked if they would like to consent to an interview. The second phase involved interviewing consenting respondents for more details surrounding their scholarly publishing experiences. As this study involved minimal risk to human subjects, we received an IRB exemption from the UCLA Office of the Human Research Protection Program (IRB#21–000885).Survey respondents were recruited via a campuswide email sent by the University Librarian, and direct outreach to faculty via departmental listservs between July 19, 2021 and August 3, 2021. Responses to the online survey were accepted through September 29, 2021. Follow up interviews occurred online via Zoom between August 30, 2021 and October 6, 2021. The survey could be viewed within a browser window or on a mobile device. Once submitted, responses could not be edited.The survey was divided into four main sections. First, we gathered general information about the subjects’ departmental affiliation, academic status and years of experience measured by number of years post-Ph.D. Second, we asked questions about primary research outputs, publishing priorities, preferences and involvement with the publication process. Third, we gathered basic information about research information and data management practices. Lastly, we asked respondents how they and their respective departments tracked research outputs and impact. A redacted copy of the questions used for this study are available in Figure Supplement 1.Online survey respondents who consented to and attended a scheduled interview were compensated with a $25 gift card to campus retailers. The one-on-one interview allowed researchers to push the respondents for publishing priorities and motivations, as well as recurring challenges and concerns. Interview questions centered scholar priorities but varied marginally depending on respondent status. For example, graduate students were asked how their mentor influences their publishing choices, and faculty were asked about their approach to mentoring trainees in choosing publications. The ability to ask follow-up questions about priorities and decision-making processes provided greater insights into the reasoning behind researcher publication choices. Two researchers were present at each online interview to serve distinct roles. One researcher conducted the interview with the respondent, asking questions and follow-ups, while the other research took detailed notes.2.2Data analysis was performed using the R programming language and the following computational packages: for data cleaning and grouping we used ′dplyr' version 1.0.8, ′tibble' version 3.1.6, ′tidyr' version 1.1.4, ′reshape2′ version 1.4.4 and ′stringr' version 1.4.0. For data visualization and content organization ′ggplot2′ version 3.3.5, ′RColorBrewer' version 1.1–2 and ′knitr' version 1.36. Code and supplementary material are available on UCLA Dataverse .Respondents were grouped based on career status or disciplinary area. For groups based on career status, groups were determined based on length of time since they completed their terminal degree, in the case of our data most respondents had completed or were in the process of completing their PhD. Individuals who had not yet completed or were less than 5 years post-PhD were grouped as “Early Career” researchers. Individuals between 6 and 25 years post-PhD were grouped as “Mid-Career” researchers. Individuals 26+ years post-PhD were grouped as “Full Career” researchers.Groups based on disciplinary area were determined based on similarities in department structure, departmental incentives, and subject area. A detailed description on departmental groupings can be found in Figure Supplement 2. “Basic Sciences” departments include: “Biosciences,” “Chemistry,” “Public Health,” and “Institute for Environment and Sustainability.” Under “Pre-Professional” departments we included “Medicine,” “Dentistry,” “Nursing,” “Health Policy,” and “Psychology.” Under the category of “Physical Sciences” we included “Engineering,” “Physics,” “Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,” “Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences,” “Mathematics,” and “Computer Science.”2 tests of independence or Fisher's exact test where Χ2 estimations were not accurate due to small group counts. For survey questions with multiple categorical responses, we used Χ2 test goodness of fit tests to test if proportions were equal between groups. Multiple comparisons were accounted for using a Bonferroni multiple comparisons approach.Comparisons between groupings for Yes/No/Unsure responses were assessed with Χ2.3Free response questions were used to help respondents articulate more details about grant funding, primary publishing criteria, data publishing or sharing, descriptive information about assessment and reproducibility practices. Responses were reviewed in full to create coded categories for similar response types. Mentions of key words or relevant statements within respondent answers were tallied based on the created response types. Tallied responses were then grouped based on career status or department affiliation to illuminate patterns of responses.33.1Survey respondents include a group of 182 researchers representing various academic statuses and departments. We hypothesized that individuals at different levels of their career might have different priorities, preferences, and practices for their publishing. Based on our sampling distributions we created three bins: early-career (less than 5 years post-PhD), mid-career (6–25 years post-PhD), and full-career (26+ years post PhD) researchers A. We fou2 test of independence we found that career status was not significantly dependent on departmental groupings (p = 0.166). We observe that Full career researchers are our smallest group, comprised of 34 respondents, mid-career researchers comprised 41 respondents and early-career researchers represent the largest group with 54 respondents. Most respondents (90.7%) indicated their primary research outputs were journal articles  and Impact Factor (p = 0.0025). Notably, mid-career researchers were more than twice as likely to mention impact factor than any other group. In addition, full-career researchers were nearly 3 times more likely than early-career researchers to mention prestige or reputation as a primary criterion (Using Χriterion D. Free r3.22 test: p < 0.001), but not dependent on department (χ2 test: p = 0.1202). . A. We notPreprint publishing is a key way in which investigators can participate in open access publishing at low cost. When grouping by career status, we found that mid-career researchers and full-career researchers were appear more likely to sometimes, or never publish preprints B. When g2 tests we found no significant dependence between eScholarship use and career status, or department. These data highlight that departments don't discourage their researchers from publishing in open access platforms but is consistent with what we observe in The University of California system manages eScholarship a manuscript repository similar to preprint repositories such as arXiv and BioRxiv. When grouping by career status we see that all groups published in eSchoalrship at similar rates E. When g3.3To estimate how much researchers spent on publishing we asked respondents to indicate how much they spend, on average, publishing in a peer reviewed journal in the last five years. We found that the cost of publishing is not equal among different department types A. The ma2 test p = 0.0077), with fewer respondents in physical sciences supported by grant funding. No significant differences were seen based on career status. We found that grant funding status didn't significantly impact if respondents were discouraged by the cost of open access publishing . We see that early career researchers have the least experience (2 test p = 0.00236) and using open-source software (2 test p = 0.0123). The majority of all respondents use open-source software or publicly available data, with early-career researchers reporting the highest proportion of use for publicly available data . Early and mid-career researchers are more likely to monitor impact using Altmetrics (2 test p = 0.00036). Early career and mid-career researchers are also more likely to communicate about their research in more open and public channels like academic social media networks such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu (2 test p = 0.0239) and popular social media platforms like Twitter (2 test p < 0.0001).The majority of all respondents monitor their research impact by citation counts and h-index A and B, 2 test p = 0.0002 and 2 test p = 0.0005). Early career researchers are most likely to be unsure if their departments measure impact in these ways, while mid and late career researchers are more likely to affirm that their departments measure impact in these ways  correlation between impact factor and career path.” Other investigators lamented this fact: “Unfortunately, the most important criteria are what others think of the journal …” Together these data highlight that early and mid-career researchers monitor their impact using more open platforms or inclusive metrics compared to full career faculty. However, departmental assessment creates a chilling effect on publishing in open access journals when they prioritize impact factor and prestige. Furthermore, since early career researchers are less sure of how they are evaluated, indicating a growth area for outreach and open access advocacy.3.6Seventeen survey respondents consented to a follow-up interview. Of those seventeen interviewed, five were graduate students at various stages of their program, one participant identified as research staff, and eleven identified as professors. Of the professors, experience levels ranged from assistant adjunct to emeriti. Disciplinary representation was broad, however, the majority of interview respondents belonged to health and life science domains.Our interviews added insights to respondents' selections. In our interviews with mid-career researchers, cost was the first criteria mentioned as a matter of concern. However, this was closely linked to journal prestige in surprising ways . An earlSurvey free responses also indicate that researchers pay close attention to a journal's visibility and reputation in their field, and how publishing in a respective journal impacts their career advancement and grant competitiveness. A very small minority of full-career researchers surveyed prefer not to publish in open access journals, and conflate predatory journals with open access journals. Interviews provided some rationale for that choice. According to a senior professor in the Life Sciences, “affordable OA journals don't have great reputations because they're ‘fire hydrants,’” meaning they publish as much as they can without much editorial oversight. For some faculty, trust in the editorial process isn't there. A late career professor in the health sciences noted that some newer OA journals are not indexed by preferred databases. This indicates an opportunity for education as the vast majority of relevant OA journals are indexed in the most widely used databases in the health sciences, including Pubmed.Regardless of discipline or experience level, researchers who collaborated directly with groups outside the academy highlighted the importance of access for their collaborators and stakeholders. Two separate public health researchers lamented problems with international co-author access to papers published in conventional subscription journals that otherwise met their criteria. An ecology graduate student expressed frustration in their ability to share published work with state and federal Fish and Wildlife stakeholders. Again, the selected publication had enough prestige, disciplinary fit, and editorial speed to move forward with publication. A Psychiatry faculty member said their work was hampered by an inability to share published work with local policymakers, but due to rigorous merit standards within the department, didn't feel they had much choice of journal selection.Interviews revealed that consideration of impact factor is an ongoing discussion in many departments and is not prioritized uniformly across disciplines. A senior faculty member in Life Sciences commented, in response to impact factors, that “for years we didn't use metrics. Now we use them if they look good.” Senior faculty in Medicine stated that they advise trainees that “where you publish matters, but it can be overcome by citations. Eventually good work will find the light, but there might be a delay.” Unfortunately, in competitive fields, researchers may not have time to wait. One early-career respondent stated “several of my more recent papers have been in lower impact journals, and it's an embarrassment to me.” A respondent in Psychiatry said “my promotion coordinator will look down the list of publications, without reading them, and judge based on his perceived impact factor [of a publication]. Not the actual impact factor [of a publication].” Every researcher interviewed mentioned that there were niche journals specific to their field that were very important and trumped the value of more prestigious journals. Reasons for this varied. A respondent in Medicine claimed that “everything is available online, so as long as its on PubMed, it doesn't really matter.” Smaller subfields used the term “visibility” to highlight the validity of publishing in journals that may have a low impact factor but are very important to their specific discipline.The overwhelming concern brought to our attention by respondents was the high cost of Open Access publishing. This response added nuance to our survey data, which listed cost as a priority, but less important than overall prestige. Surveyed respondents categorized their funding source as public , or university, meaning they have some responsibility to make their research public. Importantly, many respondents noted that their funding sources covered their research, but specifically not the dissemination. One researcher in the health sciences had been dissuaded from adding OA article processing fees to their grant application.With regard to data publication and sharing, the most remarkable finding was that every single interview respondent had slightly different ideas about how and when it was appropriate to share their data. In the health sciences, researchers were most concerned about misinterpretation of data. In life sciences, researchers were concerned with other labs scooping their data before their lab had a chance to analyze multiple angles. In computational fields, data sharing was the norm and accompanied published manuscripts.Graduate students interviewed seemed both acutely aware of challenges in the publishing space, and aware of their agency. While acknowledging stories of access challenges and a desire to share their work, they reported that all their publishing values were secondary to those of their supervisor. In ideal scenarios, they align.4The chief difficulty in considering this study was the challenge of estimating an accurate study population. The campus is large, there is a porous border with a large healthcare system, and at any point faculty may be on sabbatical. Further, reaching all potential participants can only be confidently limited to Bruinpost (campus news) recipients since we could not confidently verify the number of researchers contacted by Student Affairs Offices. We overestimated potential respondents in our pre-registration, however, even assuming a much lower number of potential respondents, response numbers were low. Respondents were allowed to skip questions in the online survey, meaning some survey questions have even fewer responses.This study is also subject to a response bias since researchers who did respond are demonstrating interest in the collective interests of their institution. They may exhibit a similar bias towards or against Open Access, the editorial process, and data sharing. It is challenging to generalize our findings beyond select participants who gave detailed responses given the small sample size and unknown bias of respondents. Statistical tests conducted on survey and free-response results are offered as exploratory findings and may have limited relevance to other institutions.Our decision to group by discipline and career status made sense when considering UCLA's unique campus culture but may not be applicable to all institutions. Since departmental affiliation can be a fluid and imperfect way of grouping researchers, we sought to create groups with similar motivations and requirements unique to UCLA. We note that even though we expect there to be similarities based on our groupings, this study is not able to specifically determine that these groupings cause the differences we see and follow up studies need to be conducted to better understand causation behind our significant findings.5Collectively, our data indicate that there are stark differences in priorities when comparing early-, mid- and full-career researchers. Even though all groups primarily publish journal articles as their primary research output, the priorities behind selecting where to publish varied in important ways. Findings from both the survey and interviews indicate that a researcher's publishing preferences rest in a delicate balance between the cost of publication and the desire to publish in a high-impact, branded journal . Our resThe importance of impact factor and prestige was highlighted and justified by our findings, particularly for mid- and full-career faculty. Prestige was the most important factor among full-career faculty, more so than fit/relevance/scope D. This iWhen reflecting on participation in publishing, we found it surprising that ORCID use was lower among early career researchers B. This cData management and publishing is a critical area of transformation in open science and many publishers and funders are focusing on data sharing to improve research transparency and reproducibility. The vast majority of survey respondents indicated that they publish data always or most of the time F. HoweveMeasuring research impact is a major challenge since it can take years or decades for research findings to influence policy or markets. Departments are best suited to assess the impact of their research, but there are several metrics such as citations, H-index, and Altmetrics that can be used to determine how the work is perceived by their respective fields. We find that early and mid-career researchers are more likely to monitor impact and publish about their work using more inclusive metrics and platforms. However, early career researchers remain more unsure about how they are assessed by their departments relative to their more experienced counterparts F and G. As far as barriers to open access, most respondents indicate they are discouraged by cost irrespective of career status or department B and C. In summary we find that cost and culture are the most substantial barriers to open access publishing. It is not surprising that advocacy strategies will need to vary based on career status, but our results offer insight into which strategies would be effective for researchers at different career stages. We find that early career researchers would benefit the most from learning about preprint and data publishing platforms and are likely to be receptive to ethical arguments for open access publishing. For mid-career researchers, finding ways to reduce the cost of publishing would be a direct way to increase OA publishing. Alternatively, encouraging preprint and data publishing as a means for increasing openness while still publishing in prestigious journals. This could be another way to increase openness in the publishing workflow as an alternative to paying for APCs in Gold Open Access journals. Finally, full career researchers may ultimately be the most difficult to reach since prestige or reputation of publishing venues is a driving force behind their publishing decisions. Ultimately, it may be that data publishing or open access publishing requirements may be the most effective way of enacting change for those who do not already prioritize it.Ibraheem Ali, M. Wynn Tranfield: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.Jason Burton: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.https://doi.org/10.25346/S6/5OYU8Y.Data associated with this study has been deposited at UCLA Dataverse Supplementary content related to this article has been published online at [URL].The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


In March 2023, PLOS ONE updated its Human Subjects Research Policy to require that authors provide ethics approval documentation at initial submission for studies reporting research involving human participants [icipants . Here, wPLOS ONE meet all applicable national and international regulations, and adhere to high standards for research and publication ethics.Our publication criteria require that “research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity” , which aThe competitive nature of academic publishing, tenure, and hiring decisions can incentivize researchers to take shortcuts, compromising on ethics to boost or accelerate their publication records . In somePLOS and other publishers have recently seen a rise in large-scale cases involving manipulation of the publication process –8, and wPLOS ONE has always required that submissions include an Ethics Statement reporting information about the study’s ethics approval and informed consent procedures. On occasion, journal staff have requested ethics approval documents for studies where there were concerns about adherence to the policy.For research involving human participants, PLOS ONE ran a trial in 2022 wherein cohorts of authors were asked to supply ethics approval documents before peer review. Compliance was high, but what journal staff found was deeply troubling: in one cohort, nearly two-thirds of submissions did not meet PLOS ONE’s human subjects research requirements and were therefore rejected. Importantly, journal staff would not have detected the issues had they not requested the ethics documentation.Several observations led to our decision to require ethics approval documents at the point of submission. Recently, the PLOS Publication Ethics team has handled higher volumes of cases where ethics documents received during their investigations raised concerns about whether ethics standards were upheld during the research process, whether measures were in place to protect participants in the research, or whether the reported findings were reliable. In light of these concerns, PLOS ONE Human Subjects Research Policy effective 1 March 2023 [Given these observations, we updated the In the three months since we implemented the new policy, the proportion of manuscripts rejected by staff editors before review has increased by 30%. This statistic suggests that the updated policy removes studies performed without documented ethics approval from consideration at an early stage of the review process. With ever-increasing numbers of manuscripts published each year, implementing robust triage criteria at the start of the submission process helps ensure that Academic Editors and reviewers are asked to review only the work that meets core requirements outlined in journal policies.PLOS ONE authors are not (yet) familiar with our updated requirements, which has led to manuscripts being returned to authors at the point of initial submission so that they can provide the required documents on resubmission. We are looking for solutions to make this process more streamlined for authors, as well as to increase awareness about our updated policy. In addition, ethics approval documents vary by institution, and ethics standards can differ on a country-by-country basis. To ensure that these considerations are reflected in our processes and editorial decisions, we have provided additional training and support to the subject matter experts who examine the ethics documents during the initial editorial checks of new submissions [As with any change, there have been challenges associated with the implementation of this new policy. We have found that many missions .PLOS ONE publishes, either, despite the increased desk rejection rate.Researchers with whom we have discussed the policy understand the rationale and are supportive of the updated requirements. Our submission volume has not been adversely affected. Moreover, at this early stage, we do not anticipate that the policy will have a significant effect on the number of papers that PLOS ONE that involves human participants meets high ethics standards, so that the community can continue to trust, reuse, and build upon the work that we publish.We recognize the role that journals have in supporting the integrity of the published literature. We are proud to be taking this step to ensure that research submitted to


The latter is particularly evident in the recent corona virus epidemic as well as the emergence of multi-resistant microorganisms, which not only affect our daily lives but also have severe consequences for the global economy. The recent recognition of microbiomes as key determinants of plant, animal, human and ecosystem health illustrates the importance of our discipline and calls for intensified collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts to address global challenges of the 21st century.We therefore anticipate that the number of top-tier papers based on microbial research with impact on a wide range of research areas will further increase. To accommodate the projected research output in this area, the EAM, supported by the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEMS), has decided to instate a new journal that provides a home for such top class research. Currently, FEMS provides a variety of microbiology journals, but a broad-scope journal with a remit to publish cross-disciplinary research of the highest quality is urgently needed.microLife is a gold open access journal in microbiology. Thus all content will be available for free immediately on the journal's website (https://academic.oup.com/microlife). We invite outstanding papers of the highest standard, novelty, and significance in all areas of microbiology as full-length research articles, short reviews or commentaries. microLife will cover all aspects of microbiology ranging from molecular and evolutionary biology, physiology and genetics, environmental microbiology, chemical biology of microorganisms, microbiome research, infection and host-responses to translational microbiology and microbial biotechnology. All microbes, bacteria, archaea, viruses, parasites, protists or fungi will be covered by microLife.microLife welcomes direct submissions and also offers the Academy Submission route for EAM contributions. Submitting to microLife offers several benefits: The journal will allow format-neutral initial submissions and posting on preprint servers. Manuscripts considered for publication will not be rejected if similar results are published elsewhere by others after submission to microLife. We will also consider manuscripts that confirm or extend a recently published study reporting major advances in the field. We will furthermore offer the option to recognize the work done by co-reviewers during peer review. The EAM member track includes the option to submit one manuscript per year, with EAM members acting as self-editing corresponding authors .microLife was designed by members of our scientific community to serve the needs of our community. As the show case journal of the EAM, microLife aims at establishing itself as one of the top journals in microbiology and its related fields, helping to further promote our scientific discipline. EAM members serve as editors of the journal further ensuring highest quality of the research published in microLife. FEMS and our publisher, Oxford University Press, contribute their long-standing expertise in scientific publishing to this endeavour and will guarantee efficient promotion and communication of the research published in microLife. Importantly, microLife as a journal of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies will direct profits to support young researchers for attending conferences or carrying out research visits in other laboratories. We are very proud of this agreement.microLife as a top class journal and look forward receiving your best research as submitted manuscripts.We invite you to join us on this exciting mission to establish


JMIR Perioperative Medicine supports the dissemination of technological and data science–driven innovative research conducted by interdisciplinary teams in perioperative medicine. We invite contributions on a broad range of topics from clinicians, scientists, and allied health professionals from across the globe. It was not until 1846 that the possibility of undergoing a major surgical procedure without experiencing excruciating pain was recorded . A few dToday, technological advancements and digital innovations continue to transform perioperative medicine at an unprecedented pace compared to yesteryears. This field has become much more interdisciplinary than ever before. There has been an increasing amount of research to predict, prevent, or understand the short- and long-term impacts of physiological perturbances during the perioperative period on different organ systems. mHealth  technologies are being used to educate surgical patients, caregivers, and clinicians about perioperative pain management or to collect patient health data, perioperative outcomes, or experiences. Resource utilization, access, and patient and clinician experience are being optimized through telemedicine and digital communication strategies . Big datJMIR Perioperative Medicine is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Directory of Open Access Journals , EBSCO/EBSCO Essentials, and Sherpa/Romeo. This journal welcomes contributions from a diverse group of investigators and clinicians from across the globe. We accept clinical trials, meta-analyses, reviews, observational studies, quality improvement studies, research letters, viewpoints, and tutorials. We are committed to disseminating research and advancements in all aspects of perioperative medicine. This includes novel and promising formative studies that may inform future research in the field. We accept articles on a broad range of topics in perioperative medicine such as digital and technological innovations; patient monitoring; patient and clinician education; operating room management; anesthetic techniques; pain management; interdisciplinary care; perioperative risk assessment; blood management; best practices; access to surgery and critical care; quality; safety; cost-effectiveness; diversity, equity, and inclusion; climate change and sustainability; and global surgical initiatives.JMIR Perioperative Medicine aims to be at the forefront of this movement for sharing interdisciplinary knowledge and innovation in perioperative medicine on a global scale. With our talented editorial board and editorial team, we provide our authors with the best experience from submission to post publication. We look forward to receiving inspiring and exciting submissions to this journal as we, in symbiosis, shape the field of perioperative medicine.Although substantial progress has been made in perioperative medicine, much remains to be done and new frontiers are yet to be explored. Life expectancy has increased and older patients with many more comorbidities are opting to undergo surgical procedures. Globally, 4.2 million patients still die within 30 days of surgery, with over half of these deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries . This am


According to DORA, “it is critical to understand that the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment. These limitations include: (A) citation distributions within journals are highly skewed –5, (B) tInstead, DORA advocates evaluating the quality of the research itself, i.e. the scientific content of a publication is more important than the journal in which it is published, recommends online publications with no limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles, and proposes that a variety of journal-based and article-based metrics shall be used to provide scientists a richer view of journal and article impact.Fungal Biology and Biotechnology, to discuss what has been achieved, highlight some of the most influential articles, and what further progress we envision for the years to come.DORA, the worldwide Open Access movement, the unfortunate uncontrolled rise of ‘predatory journals’, a major gap in applied aspects of mycology and the associated expressions of woe by colleagues were the impetus for us to launch the first Open Access journal devoted to fungal bio(techno)logy. A decade later, we think that it is now the right time to evaluate the performance of In our opening editorial we stated that “We intend for the journal to become a hub for researchers seeking information on their favorite topics as well as considering new or alternative directions. The journal shall become a platform for scientists from academia and industry to present their hottest findings in unicellular or multicellular fungal systems, in medical or industrial strains, and in so far unexplored species. This will be a platform for experts to discuss their visions on how fungi can help us to address some of the key challenges of the twenty-first century.” . Before Fungal Biology and Biotechnology publishes about 15–20 paper a year with a yearly acceptance rate that ranges between 40–60% of submitted manuscripts. The full text of all articles is deposited in digital archives around the world to guarantee long-term digital preservation. All articles are Open Access and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license, which means they are accessible online without any restrictions and can be re-used in any way if properly cited. The journal’s publication rate of 15–20 paper a year is too low to become considered by one of the, arbitrary, criteria of Clarivate for indexing with a JIF. However, all articles published in Fungal Biology and Biotechnology are included in PubMed, PubMed Central, the Directory of Open Access Journals and, since 2018, in Scopus® that is a citation and abstract database provided by Elsevier and that records more than 22,000 currently peer-reviewed journals.Fungal Biology and Biotechnology has performed.Scopus also creates several metrics that evaluate a journal’s citation impact by different standards to Clarivate’s JIF. These are described in the following sections and how Fungal Biology and Biotechnology, the CiteScore = 9.5, with an increase in trajectory since being included in Scopus , which is based on Elsevier’s Scopus database, calculates the number of citations in one year to all journal’s articles in the preceding three years, weighted by the importance or prestige  of the citing journals. Similar to the 4-year CiteScore, the SJR also places the journal in a number of top quartile disciplines, and with an upwards trajectory over the last two years Fig. .Fig. 2ScThe calculation of the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), also Scopus-based, starts off similarly as for the SJR but then contextualizes and normalizes a journal’s citation-based impact by taking into account the total number of citations in a research discipline. Effectively, in a field where reference lists tend to be shorter, each citation counts more (and vice versa). A SNIP value of 1.0 represents the median (not the mean) number of citations for journals in a given field. Figure Fungal Biology and Biotechnology. Table However, the use of alternative metrics based on overall journal citations likely faces the same types of criticisms as raised for the use of the JIF. It may be more interesting to see what individual publications are most popular in The curious aspect about the popular papers in Table Fungal Biology and Biotechnology has been proactive in providing, as in the DORA philosophy, a publishing home for research addressing the journal’s core focus. This divergence from a mainstream set of fungal topics carries over into different ways to communicate the research discoveries and the potential of fungi in society. In addition to regular articles, other ways the journal has been proactive in communicating findings published in the journal but also fungal biology across the discipline more widely has been through a blog, organized by Kustrim Cerimi and at times highlighting up and coming new scientists and their unpublished work presented at conferences, and its Twitter account (@FBBiotech), that has been organized by early career scientists Corrado Nai and Carsten Pohl.But it is not just the ‘top of a list’ that represents a journal, and The journal has also been active in the sponsorship of conferences to support its community base, including at the two big international meetings, being the Fungal Genetics Conference organized by the Genetics Society of America and held every two years at the Asilomar Conference Center in California and in the alternative year the European Fungal Genetics Conference that is held in different locations each time. The journal has been able to provide support for student prizes, and at the Asilomar Fungal Genetics Conference organized meetings between the editorial board members who were attending.Fungal Biology and Biotechnology despite is small volume of output has had large impacts into the fungal publishing world and to mycology. Where into the next decade? Perhaps the style of articles reflects the personalities of the editors, whose terms in these roles are not indefinite and the journal may therefore change in direction. Broadening the ‘other’ contributions would be ideal, e.g. despite growing interest by the general public in fungi likely driven by a number of charismatic personalities promoting fungi globally, fewer and fewer institutions offer subjects devoted to this topic. A resource that could be filled would be in generating educational material that could be freely accessed and help restore this gap.As editors, what can we draw from a decade of experiences? The numbers suggest that


Twenty-twenty has been a year of apprehension, fears, adversities, changes, adaptations, and challenges. It will be forever present in everyone’s memory, defined not only by all the previous words but also by having been tackled by a minuscule living being - Covid19! Furthermore, conspiration theories, fake news, pessimism, political disputes, and poverty increase have also imprinted the world history, while concomitantly, there has been a frenetic race led by the scientific community to develop the saver vaccine against the Sars-Covid19. In the middle of the whirlwind, Science has been questioned and lost its balance. On one side, some people believe in the relevancy and veracity of adequate methodologic data, and on the other, those who ignore them. However, it is under adversities that the human beings seem to reinvent themselves, and perspectives, many times rather challenging bloom, contradicting the “blindness” of those who cannot give foresee some light. As stated by Saramago - the apprentice thought: “we are blind,” and he sat down to write Blindness to remind those who might one day read it that we perversely use reasoning when humiliating life, that the human being dignity is daily insulted by the mighty influential people in our world, that the universal lies have taken over the plural trues, that Man has lost his self-respect when he lost the respect towards his fellow-creatureAmong this contemporary fussiness, the Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons has faced similitudes. For us, from the new Editorial Board, the challenge has been Herculean, as, beyond the “novelty,” the number of submitted papers has increased by 30% in 2020. That has required a more rigorous review process. After all, it is not enough to have many manuscripts; it is also fundamental to have minimum quality criteria so that these papers might later be cited, and therefore might contribute to the impact factor. The impact factor should not be the only premise when assessing scientific publications, mainly when it has been the reason for many controversies and discussionsIn 2020, the CBC journal acceptance rate decreased to 27% versus 38% in 2019, and it may remain around this cutoff or even lower. Scientific quality and rigor should set the tone; although this is seldom discussed in Brazil, it must be tackled. Thus, to reach quality in the editorial process, we have decided to rely on distinct surgical experts; these are the associate editors. The associate editors’ selective process was democratically open to all CBC members who were required to fulfill pre-defined criteria to be part of such a challenging task. It was with great pleasure and surprise that we saw many surgeons interested in carrying it out. Therefore, currently, the CBC journal has nine associate editors who work in syntony with the editor in chief and with the other members of the editorial board or the ad hoc invited reviewers. We hope to reach new goals, embarking on the principles of scientific quality publications, in a country where it is a tremendous challenge to carry out research. However, it is plausible to conduct local studies, even as they may seem “simple” once the scientific method percepts are respected and correct. Such manuscripts will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the practice of medicine in the country and to our patients. It is mister to stimulate the correct method! -,A rigorous scientific method and appropriate language are essential to reach credibility and applicability in research. However, such a premise is rarely taught in graduation and post-graduation courses, negatively impacting what is published worldwideSomeone who is not aware of the publication healthcare industry believes that everything published should be taken as a conduct determinant,,In the core of the scientific discussion, negative human characteristics are often seen, such as vanity and lack of ethics, perpetuated and not challenged by non-critical readers. For the latter, whatever is published in journal X or Y that has an “impact factor” is enough. Once again, it is fundamental to acknowledge the role of the scientific methodThe world gallops fast, and the need for quick publications is required; this is to say, decreased time between submission and publication is an essential determinant of journal quality. However, the whole publication pathway demands the careful fulfilling of steps, which comprise not only quality of the submitted paper, adequate peer-review and editorial decision but also a complicated logistic. The latter requires elaborated organizational systems. Unfortunately, there are flaws once the control of all the steps surpasses the editorial board’s responsibility. It is an interprofessional task that is associated to costs and political relationships non-related to the editors’ competencies. In this regard, this will remain a considerable challenge, mainly because the pandemic economic sequela has become prevalent. Let us move on!As the “captain” of this editorial board, the goals and metrics will always be linked to offer ethical scientific information, bearing in mind that plagiarism must be early identified


Southern African Journal of Infectious Diseases (SAJID) since I was appointed in November 2022 and an opportunity for reflection. As someone who first entered the difficult but personally rewarding pathway of writing and publishing in 1988, I am now in at the receiving end. Despite being on the Editorial Board since SAJID’s inception in 2014, I was not very active. Rather, my efforts were towards getting my own manuscripts published, as with most ‘academics’. I receive manuscripts for review and begin the process through an initial evaluation of new manuscripts to ensure the suitability of content for the journal and readability for the reviewers and readers. At this stage, for those not yet suitable for review, if there is potential merit, I offer advice, which in my opinion would strengthen the manuscript and encourage resubmission. If suitable for review, with agreement of the three-person editorial team, we assign responsibility to one of us. The next task is to find suitable reviewers who are knowledgeable in the subject area and willing to review. The process can be lengthy, but seeing a useful article through to publication has immense value for all of us. Our reviews focus on practical advice, aimed at improving the manuscripts and relevance for the readers to deepen understanding. As a clinician, my first publications were case reports, which improved my own clinical insights and gave me experience in the difficult task of writing.2 Apart from the data presented in a manuscript, language and grammar are key to effectively communicating one’s work. In this era of super-specialisation, it is good to gain a broader understanding of topics. As a paediatrician, I have always enjoyed learning about experience in adults and laboratory aspects of infectious diseases. Much of it applies to children too, either directly or through the families. By representing the Federation of Infectious Diseases of Southern Africa, SAJID covers a broad range of topics highly relevant to where we practice. Topics range from clinical experience, antimicrobial resistance patterns, parasitology, tuberculosis, treatment guidelines and immunisation. Case studies are often a springboard to something new or previously unrecognised. For example, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome was described clinically almost 2 years prior to the formal identification of the human immunodeficiency virus.3 The Southern African Journal of Infectious Disease is an appropriate journal for all levels of contributors, from an emerging investigator working on their first submission to leaders in their fields. There is place for all, provided that the manuscripts make meaningful contributions to the field. Many colleagues contribute to making SAJID such a valuable resource. Professor Charles Feldman was editor-in-chief since the journal’s inception in 2014 and oversaw the transition from the Southern African Journal of Epidemiology and Infection (SAJEI), established by Prof. Hendrik Koornhof in 1985 and supported by Priscilla May. Fortunately, Prof. Feldman continues to give guidance as emeritus editor-in-chief. We also thank Prof. John Frean, deputy editor until 2022 and always available for advice as emeritus deputy editor. Professor Andrew Whitelaw is the new deputy editor since November 2022. His expertise and commitment are integral to maintaining standards of excellence. Under Prof. Feldman’s leadership, SAJID is accredited by the Department of Education and Training (DHET) enabling teaching institutions to receive funding for journal outputs. Since 2021, SAJID has been listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and indexed on PubMed. A direct consequence of these developments is our first impact factor of 0.9 for 2022. The impact factor is a measure of citations by authors of recent articles from the journal. The reviewers are essential for providing balanced, fair and objective critique. We are extremely grateful to the many reviewers who take time from their extremely busy professional lives to perform this function. All of us on the editorial team know that it is a time-consuming activity – but without reviewers the journal cannot function. With this in mind, we encourage you to accept invitations to review – this serves not only the broader medical and scientific community but also as you undertake more reviews you will improve your own analytical and appraisal abilities. Lastly, we are very grateful to our publisher, the AOSIS team. whose technical expertise is essential for the journal. In conclusion, through all of our collective commitment, SAJID is an invaluable resource for Southern African research and the health of our people. Let us keep it that way and do even better.This is my first editorial as editor-in-chief of the


After 7 years as Editor-in-Chief of Epilepsy & Behavior Reports (EBR) and at the start of a new year, my last word to our reviewers is THANK YOU!! We have seen unprecedented times with the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when EBR shined like a beacon of light in the dark to continue her current pathway of success. EBR has evolved from a case report journal to a high-quality peer-reviewed on-line news piece highlighting rare cases and unique patient experiences focused on the behavioral aspects of people with epilepsy. All manuscripts submitted to EBR are peer reviewed and available on PubMed. If accepted, articles are edited, abstracted for the lay population, and handled for rapid publication to readers with global access to https://www.sciencedirect.com.EBR stimulates her readership with literature that serves to advance multinational and multicultural aspect of epilepsies on the world-wide stage. Two invited reviewers provide expert comments on a submitted manuscript. Through volunteer efforts, reviewers selflessly provide academic input to address novelty and quality of submissions devoted to the behavioral aspects of people with seizures and epilepsy. As the proud companion of Epilepsy & Behavior  EBR, like her sister journal, publishes full-length research papers, review articles, systematic and meta-analyses, short communications, opinions and controversies, editorials and unique case reports with our fine colleagues at Elsevier. From pediatrics to adults, topics incorporate aspects involving antiseizure medications and pharmacology, electrophysiology, neurology/neurosurgery, neuroimaging, pathology, and psychiatry and psychology as the backbone of EBR. The number and quality of accepted articles continues to rise. With over 300 invited reviewers in 2022, selected specifically by their area of expertise, software helps identify authors of previously published articles all over the world. Given time limitations for volunteer reviewers, interesting titles of articles within their area of expertise are selected. This allow an expert and critical review of information that is important to ensure top-quality publication for the EBR readership. In addition, it allows initial review of new information that maybe useful to the reviewers to include as an update within one’s area of interest. Information on clinical epilepsy, surgical therapy, new antiseizure medication, semiology, intracranial EEG, neuropsychological assessment, and social issues including SUDEP have been included in accepted journal articles among many other topics. The origin of reports in EBR stem from academic epilepsy centers, communities, and rural areas in developed and developing countries from all over the world.Our international list of reviewers and board members has been cultivated to include a strong academic placeholder for the direction of EBR during the review process. It is with humility and pride that the editors of EBR, extend our gratitude to reviewers. Those who dedicate their expertise and volunteer time to make EBR the best journal that it can be. As we begin 2023, we look forward to receiving more interesting manuscripts dealing with epilepsy and behavior. We thank our reviewers, editorial board members, Elsevier, and especially our authors for terrific and interesting contributions that provide our readers rare, unexpected, and novel findings to help understand the successes and barriers to overcome for people with epilepsy. From all of us at EBR and on behalf of Elsevier, we wish you a warm, successful, and productive new year, with health and happiness in 2023.