Dear Editor,The scholarly world is currently facing various anomalous threats that include paid publishers and fake journals. There has been enough debate about the challenges of predatory publishers, which encourage authors to publish their work in unreliable peer-reviewed journals, for a price.A new discussion has spread across the scholarly world regarding fake journals. This is a recent phenomenon of even more malevolent fraud that has broken into the realm of the academic world. This phenomenon is also commonly known as “hijacked journals” or “clone journals.”Clone journal web pages are a counterfeit mirror of an authentic journal that exploit the title and ISSN of legitimate journals.Some of these counterfeit journals actively chase authors by trawling through the latest conference proceedings to acquire the e-mail addresses of participants. These people are then approached through a modified e-mail message that announces a fake call for papers in a current issue of the journal. Careless authors may be duped by these solicitations into paying an open-access publication fee, trusting that their work is about to be published in a reputable journal.Once these authors have paid the publication fee, they may lose ownership over their submission because they will have signed it over to the clone publisher. Consequently, they will be unable to get a refund or withdraw the article from publication. Since the article has now been “officially” published, it no longer meets the legitimate criteria of most reputable journals, which have ethical guidelines regarding the submission process, which include a declaration that the article has not previously been published. In this regard, clone journals present a serious threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and place a big question mark on the peer review process.The main apprehension regarding this new trend is that unreviewed manuscripts that are published on these clone websites may become sources of medical practice and health policy and might be incorporated into systematic reviews on the clinical literature.“Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte (RBME)”, “Emergencies”, “Journal of the American Medical Association”, “Vitae Revista”, “Terapevticheskii Arkhiv” and “Kardiologiya”.The prominent journals relating to medical science that have fallen victim to this phenomenon over time have included Many researchers have highlighted a range of threats to the reliability of the scientific process of deceitful publishers, but none of them have addressed how these cybercriminals process their clone mechanism. Although publishers pay their registration charges for web domain services on a regular basis, any failure to do so could allow a waiting cyber intruder to swoop in and steal a domain for their own purposes and, at the same time, divert the entire web traffic towards the clone journal website. In the cyber world, the phenomenon of stealing web domains is known as “web swooping”.In conclusion, issuing warnings to the world of medical sciences regarding this new threat and conducting rigorous scientific reviews of citations to and from medical research articles could form the most realistic measures for combating this phenomenon. The council of science editors has suggested some cautionary red flags with the aim of educating the worldwide scholarly publishing community before sending manuscript submissions.Nonetheless, these precautionary steps require long-term measures that would enable use of stricter and more advanced techniques with the aim of eliminating these threats, along with effective copyright measures that can protect the reliability and validity of published medical science articles.


Scientific writing and publishing have evolved considerably in the past century. This is partly due to changes in the way we think, design and do research. Technological advancements have also played a major role in this process. Not long ago, submissions used to be made by mail. I remember going to a courier service office to submit a hard copy of my manuscript along with a compact disk containing the figures. Electronic systems have simplified the submission process considerably, reducing turnaround times and making it easy to follow up the whole peer review process. Believe me, it used to be more difficult than it is now.Nowadays, the number of submissions received by a leading journal in its field may be well above 1000 per year, which poses several challenges to editors and journal staff. Probably the biggest challenge for these journals these days is finding available reviewers. With the unstoppable growth of the publishing industry, the number of new publishers and journals launched each year is scary. As a result, senior researchers are receiving numerous review invitations weekly or even daily.Very often, editors need to send out invitations to more than 10 potential reviewers to secure the one or two who will actually agree to review the manuscript. Of these, some will never submit a report. This is a huge problem, and there is no easy long-term solution. Some publishers are trying to find solutions by, for example, offering incentives to reviewers, including certificates and discounts in article processing charges for those who eventually decide to submit a manuscript to the very same journal. While this may have a positive impact in terms of the percentage of reviewers who agree to review a manuscript, the overall impact of this on the peer review process is little known.JAMA Internal Medicine reported that 78% of the manuscripts received in 2017 were rejected without review [Parasites & Vectors (P&V) is 39%. Common reasons for rejection without peer review in P&V are listed in Box 1.Another strategy some journals adopt to reduce the burden on journal staff, editors and reviewers is being more selective in deciding which manuscripts should actually be sent out for peer review. As an example, the P&V’s impact factor surpassed the mark of 4. There is an increasing trend in the number of manuscripts received by P&V, not only due to the new impact factor, but because P&V continues to stand out as one of the leading journals in fields of parasitology and tropical medicine. As a response to the increasing number of submissions, we are inviting new editors and discussing strategies to improve the benefits of both editors and reviewers, to whom I would like to express my gratitude for their invaluable contributions to P&V.In 2022, for the first time, Our team of editors will keep working tirelessly to ensure a rapid peer review process as far as possible. Nonetheless, in a time when short messages and videos are the rule, it is important to remember that speed does not mean quality, especially in the context of important issues, such as scientific publishing.Box 1. Common reasons why submissions are rejected without peer reviewOut of scope of the journal: Many submissions are not sent out for peer review simply because they are out of scope of the journal. If you are unsure whether your manuscript fits the scope of the journal, send a pre-submission inquiry beforehand. If your manuscript was already rejected for this reason, look for a more suitable journal.Local interest: Many studies are rejected because the results and conclusions are of local interest. A recurrent example are small-scale cross-sectional studies of local interest. While choosing a journal, ask yourself whether your research is of local or broad interest. Sometimes, when your manuscript is rejected for its local interest, you can take another look at your data to see whether it can be used to investigate a new hypothesis of broad interest. This will largely depend on your study design and other methodological factors that may or may not allow you to investigate a new hypothesis using a different analysis. If this is unfeasible, which is usually the case, simply look for a more regional journal.No novelty: Some studies are well designed and conducted, but are limited in terms of novelty. While planning a study, make sure you have a strong research question which is relevant to the field. Once you have a novel hypothesis, double check if it is really new by performing a comprehensive literature review in different databases. It is important not only to search in PubMed and other large databases , but also in more regional databases. In this regard, WHO maintains the Global Index Medicus (GIM), which provides access to biomedical and public health literature from regional databases, including the African Index Medicus (AIM), the Scientific and Technical Literature of Latin America and the Caribbean (LILACS), Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR) and the Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRIM).Inadequate study design and procedures: The study design may be inappropriate for answering your hypothesis, including small sample size, lack of randomization and proper controls. You may also have used an old methodology that has been surpassed by more powerful methods which could provide more robust results.Incomplete methodological details and data reporting: All readers  must be able to fully understand and repeat your experiments and analyses. Complete data reporting is also pivotal. Make sure you are reporting all methodological details and all relevant data, including complete statistical results .Data availability issues: All data that support the findings and conclusions of the study should be included in the published manuscript, its additional files and/or in an electronic repository. Moreover, new DNA sequences generated in your study should be deposited in GenBank, and accession numbers must be provided. In the data availability statement, sentences like “Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request” should be avoided. Unless the corresponding author has superpowers and is immortal, she/he will not live forever, which means that in the future data will no longer be available.Ethical issues: If your research involve humans or animals, you must obtain an informed consent and an approval from an ethics committee. Also, make sure you follow the three Rs (3Rs) principle. Other necessary authorizations  must also be obtained and provided in the manuscript.Poor presentation: Manuscripts will not be rejected due to minor formatting issues that can be corrected during production. However, manuscripts lacking proper structure, those which are badly formatted and/or those with low-quality figures may be rejected. Make sure your article conforms with the journal style guide and that your figures are of high quality (not pixelated or blurry). If you do not know how to prepare high-quality figures, seek technical support before submitting your manuscript. Some tips on how to prepare good figures are available in the online P&V editorial style guide [le guide .Poor English: English writing is a major obstacle for non-English authors, particularly from institutions that do not offer translation and/or English editing services. Nonetheless, manuscripts written in poor English, which cannot be understood by readers  will not be sent out for review.Plagiarism: All manuscripts submitted to our journal are automatically checked for plagiarism. Our similarity checking tool  will highlight manuscripts with high similarity values. While I am writing this section, I just received a new submission with a 52% overall similarity (31% similarity with a single paper published from the very same authors). Self-plagiarism is also plagiarism, so make sure you modify your sentences and cite all necessary references while writing your manuscript.


In this paper, we investigate how open access is reflected and implemented in all Norwegian universities and how they responded to national policy developments for open access in the period 2009–2021. We analyse how the universities adapted arguments for the three core missions of the universities–research, education, and societal impact–when they reacted to increasing pressures to facilitate open access. Our analysis is based on 182 institutional strategy documents, open access policies and annual reports. When considering the profile of the institutional policies and the explicit referrals to national policies, we find there is a great deal of homogeneity between Norwegian universities, and they are mostly aligned with national policy. Open access is connected to the third mission in all university strategies, but often in a very general manner and without documenting benefits for non-academic users. We find limited emphasis on open access as advantageous for education. All universities show commitment to open access, and several can be described as proactive as they tie it to different types of local incentives. Development over time suggests more mature and institutionalised polices that do not challenge what we may call the academic heartland and its core value of academic freedom, including where and how to publish. We propose a framework for analysing similar institutionalisation processes with three main dimensions: mimesis, adaptation/integration with existing practices, and maturation/commitment. Plan S, a policy launched in 2018 by a federation of European research councils  ensure that funding is used efficiently and purposefully and for the benefit of the whole of society’, concluding that ‘knowledge must be shared.’ These statements support the general idea of open access, and we find that these passages from the main strategy are quoted and operationalised in NMBU’s open access policy. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), which did not mention open access in its 2011 strategy, stated that ‘[the university] disseminates research results openly’ in the third mission section of its 2018 strategy. Open access is commonly integrated in the context of third mission activities, outreach and science communication also in other universities’ main strategies. The University of Bergen (UiB) underlined societal contact and the role of science in society in their 2011 strategy without invoking open access. In 2016 and 2019, similar strategy statements brought up open access as means of dissemination.Seven institutions connect open access to the third mission in the sense of innovation and benefits for the private sector. However, innovation is a rather minor part of main strategies, and they often contain general claims that the private sector will benefit from open access. An example is the University of Oslo (UiO), which emphasised open access and innovation in its 2011 strategy. This was followed by a separate innovation strategy for 2013–2015 that included open access, but the claim was downplayed in the next (current) strategy.However, we also see examples of strengthened links between open access and innovation. The University of Tromsø (UiT) made generic statements about open access and societal contact in its 2011 strategy, while the most recent strategy portrays UiT as ‘a driving force for increased innovation to contribute to business and development in the public sector’ due to a ‘strong culture for dissemination through open channels of publishing’. NTNU’s publishing policy (2014–2020) states, ‘we know that scientific publications are a central source for innovation in the private and public sectors’. UiB’s open science policy (2020) puts forth a similar argument, referring to technological changes and digitalisation and makes a connection between openness in science and open innovation.Open access is thereby more frequently integrated into statements about the universities’ third mission than statements about research activities (second mission). While there is an innate connection between open access and research, the context of research in strategies is often excellence or international collaboration. Open access is instead found in lower-level strategy documents and internal web pages about research.None of the main strategies mention open access as supportive of education, while only two general open science policies cover educational resources. NTNU’s open science policy ‘includes all results from research, education and dissemination activities’ and UiB’s open science policy includes a section on open educational resources to ‘facilitate employees’ sharing of educational resources and make educational resources openly available in cases where it does not conflict with professional or legal considerations.’ Eight institutions do include students in their open access policy, primarily through mandating or encouraging students to deposit master theses in the institutional repository.We also find that although the universities highlight the importance of open access for the third mission and various societal aims , we find no examples or documentation in strategies or annual reports of the benefits of open access to a wider audience that could lend legitimacy to the policies. Open access accounts  in annual reports are presented unsystematically and summarily, if at all. Annual reports are, however, used for other open access purposes, for instance introducing goals and expectations for the next period, (plans for) revisions of policies, or simply stating the importance of open access. We also note an interesting rhetoric twist in NTNU’s narrative in the annual report for 2020, which reports the decreasing shares of closed articles instead of the overall increasing open access numbers.Eight institutions have revised their open access policies since 2009, primarily stating a preference of gold open access, even if the policies default to green open access and have opt-outs for green. Furthermore, all universities require their employees to deposit research articles in the institutional repository, with three institutions supplying opt-out-possibilities.There are interesting differences in compliance measures. UiO and the University of Stavanger (UiS) have chosen a formal approach by incorporating mandatory depositing in employment contracts following considerations tied to academic freedom and intellectual property rights (IPR). The other universities have not put this aspect into employment contracts.Over time, we find that open access policies use formulations we interpret as stronger with more insisting language. For example, the NTNU policy of 2014 stated that ‘knowledge ought to be easily available’, while the 2021 revision replaced ‘ought to be’ with ‘must’. Similarly, the former UiB policy ‘asked’ all employees to deposit a version of scientific articles, while the current policy is more insistent.In some cases, there is a shift in the responsibility to fulfil open access obligations. NMBU’s 2014 policy stated that ‘knowledge about open access is to be develop through information and training aimed at university employees’, while the 2019 version declared that the researchers are responsible for acquaintance and compliance with open access regulations.Four institutions have implemented incentives. UiT and USN have incentives directed at the individual researcher since approval of sabbaticals, tenure and promotion will take open access into consideration. UiO and UiB have anticipated the forthcoming arrangement in the national guidelines and as such place negative incentives at the department level. Scientific articles are not eligible for the national reimbursement program unless they are deposited, regardless of open access type. While this primarily has economic consequences at the institutional level, trickle-down arrangements that allocates funds back to the departments incentivise local action . UiO hasOsloMet, one of the forerunners on open access in Norway, introduced incentives for depositing as early as in 2010, but later removed them as a part of the institution’s merger process in 2018. We do not know whether this is due to legal aspects in the merger process, or whether incentives no longer were deemed necessary and depositing behaviour was seen as institutionalised. The latter may be a reasonable assumption, since OsloMet had over 95% of all articles deposited in its repository as early as 2010 .Six institutions discussed open access and the boundaries to academic freedom and intellectual property rights (IPR) in their documents. All of them prioritised academic freedom and legal considerations with respect to ownership of texts and emphasised the individual’s journal selection rights. This is mostly statements about granted rights; Nord University typically confirmed that ‘as a researcher, you have the right to choose publishing outlet when publishing your work’.We summarise the timeline of the broader integration of open access at the universities in Our preliminary summary is that all Norwegian universities have incorporated and strengthened their engagement in open access throughout the period. Open access is primarily seen as part of general third mission activities and often tied to science communication. Benefits of open access are not documented in annual reports.All institutions refer directly to national documents issued by the ministry. References and quotes primarily invoke the national guidelines, but also the 2013 White Paper. Eight institutions have revised their open access policies, inspired by the national guidelines, which is stated explicitly. For example, UiB stated in its 2020 policy that ‘the government has issued guidelines for the dissemination of research data and scientific articles, which lays the foundation for the activities at UiB.’When the national guidelines were drafted, all institutions were invited to comment. They expressed strong overall support for the guidelines. The National guidelines proposal further asked institutions to revise their policies in accordance with the guidelines, of which six complied. The remaining four wanted to introduce stronger measures than what the guidelines proposed.As expected in a country with one research council, its influence is seen in university policies: nine institutions refer both to the Research Council of Norway and the international Plan S. NMBU and UiA explicitly write that their policies are based on Plan S, while NTNU and UiB state that the council’s policy (which includes Plan S) is the foundation of their own policy.University open access policies share many similarities, and we observe a strong coherence with the national level and the national guidelines. All current institutional policies default to green open access with opt-out possibilities for final dissemination, and all mandate depositing. Although the universities accept hybrid open access, this is only tied to financial support through national agreements and not in dedicated institutional open access funds. This is also in accordance with national guidelines.Eight universities further state a preference for publishing in gold open access journals when researchers are faced with the choice of otherwise equal options. The last two do not state an explicit preference, but still base their policies on compliance with the national guidelines. Preferences for gold open access publishing are usually formulated cautiously and encouragingly.As mentioned, UiO, UiB, UiT and USN connect open access to different types of local incentives or as a basis for the national results-based funding indicator. These institutions have therefore implemented mechanisms that are planned but not yet implemented at the national level.Our observation is that national documents lend legitimacy to and anchor institutional policies, not least seen in revisions performed after the national guidelines appeared. Thus, all Norwegian Universities show a high degree of commitment to open access, and the motivation for open access as expressed in the national guidelines is unanimously shared.We organise our discussion by first analysing the degree of institutionalisation and the commitment to open access in Norwegian universities. Based on our empirical findings and inspired by the institutionalisation framework in Colyvas & Powell  and othemimetic process through which goals, perspectives and initiatives in national  policy documents are incorporated into the universities’ own strategic plans and other documents denoting priorities and courses of action. This is also seen over time: when national open access guidelines were introduced in 2017, university policies most often changed accordingly. There are also many similarities in the policy details and more homogeneity than what was found in Australian institutions, where there is no national policy , our case represents a more co-evolutionary process where universities have exercised influence on national guidelines.To conclude, the introduction of open access in Norway can be characterised as rather smooth and successful, with little friction between the institutional and national level and a development over relatively long time. A close relationship between the universities–which are public–and the Ministry, and the avoidance of top-down-instructions only, has led to institutional engagement. This is also mirrored in practises and the overall levels of open access see . Norway We nevertheless claim that the study can be useful for analysing developments in other countries, and our proposed theoretical framework opens up also for understanding differences and heterogeneity. The dimensions and subdimension in the framework hold a potential for understanding and interpreting movements between stages of institutionalisation, even though we assume that local contextual characteristics may require some adjustments to the framework.A main limitation of our study, perhaps also a strength, is that we take policies and strategies as a de facto expression of the institutions’ views and values. However, formulations in policies and strategies are results of creative processes, human factors and negotiations between many contributors–these are both ‘hidden’ and disregarded. We nevertheless claim that documents provide high validity for our aims.There are several topics that calls for more investigation. First, institutional policies and practises are still changing, which means further monitoring may provide valuable. We have not explored mimesis between the institutions but have found references in the documents suggesting that this is happening. There are also both formal and informal collaborations between universities at different levels, including matters concerning open access, for example through library collaboration. We believe these factors also contribute to the shaping of policies and behaviour at universities. Identifying these mechanisms would provide valuable and deeper insights in the processes of institutionalisation and how they engage various professional networks. Further, while we have concentrated our investigation on open access, there seem to be a movement towards more broad open science policies that include open access as one of several elements. How broader policies for open science plays out beyond open access is an interesting topic for later work.Finally, the role of incentives and research evaluation in policies is a fruitful research topic. This include how incentives and evaluations are introduced, shaped, and how they affect publishing behaviour. A key to open access is connected to research evaluation, which poses a direct change in the structures of the academic heartland. This may prove more challenging than introducing the principles of open access.S1 FigOverview of gold open access, hybrid open access and green open access in the period 2013–2020 given in percentage. Upper line indicate growth in total levels of open access, bottom line indicate growth in gold open access.(TIF)Click here for additional data file. 18 Apr 2022 <div> PONE-D-22-07577 </div>  <div> The green, gold grass of home: introducing open access in universities in Norway </div>  <div> PLOS ONEDear Dr. Wenaas,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.==============================ACADEMIC EDITOR: This is a neat research contribution to the field with results about Norway as a case country with regard to the rising demand of open access. The reviewers also found it strong and convincing in general, and raised several issues you are requested to look at and deal with thoroughly. In particular, as Reviewer 1 underscores, the structure of the paper should be re-thought at certain points so that it possesses more consistency. As Reviewer 2 points out, you should be more concrete about why you worked with these ten universities of your choice and place them in the larger context of Norwegian higher education. Both reviewers commented on the literature review, probably a separate section on this would help. Please, in your rebuttal deal with all of their comments.For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ==============================plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  </div> A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. <div> If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,István Tarrósy, PhDAcademic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” . The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. </font> The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 5. Review Comments to the Author </font> Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. Reviewer #1: General remarksThe manuscript aims to give a review of the institutionalization processes of Norwegian universities as those react to open access publishing. The authors conducted exploratory research to uncover how the universities implement changes and apply new practices to give institutional responses to open access policy.The methodology is chosen and applied correctly. The document analysis is conducted consistently and described clearly in the manuscript. Both the advantages and concerns regarding the institutional processes of open access are highlighted.This manuscript is actual, interesting, and reflects valuable research about open access.However, some issues of open access that are relevant from the universities point of view are not discussed in the manuscript. Thus, the reviewer has some remarks and suggestions to improve the manuscript.Major issues1. The topics of the three sections of the literature review are separated strongly. So, there is a considerable thematic gap between the consecutive parts. The content of the sections should be linked consistently. It is also worth considering whether the sequence of the three sections of the literature review is appropriate.2. In the second section of the literature review, the authors should also address how open access and the quality (or rankings) of academic journals are related to each other and whether there are any differences among disciplines regarding open access publishing.3. The authors found little information about the advantages of open access for education in the studied documents. However, more details should be provided about how open access can support education. Some statements and remarks would be useful and may be incentive.4. Why open access publishing can be advantageous for researchers should also be pointed out.5. The manuscript does not explain the issues of open access publishing funds. However, these are also relevant for universities and researchers (as the authors of papers). How universities cover the article processing charges (APC) and distribute the (dedicated) open access publishing funds among disciplines, departments, research projects, and researchers are crucial questions. It is also relevant how researchers can require financial resources to cover APC. These issues are also related to institutionalization processes and should be discussed in the manuscript.Minor issues1. The main title of the manuscript should be worded more professionally.2. The time frame of the study should be indicated in the abstract.3. Single and double quotations marks are applied alternately in the text. A coherent format is required.4. The page number is missing in some word by word citations, e.g. on page 5, in lines 191-193. It is required in each quotation.5. The authors should give some remarks in the conclusion that could be useful for other countries and universities.6. Notes should be provided in Figure 1 to understand the markings clearly.7. In Figure 2, all the signs have to be given in English.All in all, this is a valuable manuscript. It could be improved significantly by considering the abovementioned remarks and suggestions.Reviewer #2: The paper is focusing a very up-to-date and timely topic as open access phenomenon is with us just since few years. Thy analysis provides a fair overview of the topic, especially the context (its connection with the universities' third mission). Investigating strategic documents of different universities is a great idea, however, it should be emphasized better, why not all Norwegian universities are included. Also, the literature review part should be established. Now we can see the theoretical framework but not an overview, what other authors wrote about this topic. It would be an essential issue, as the topic itself is very young. So, in this way, a critical-analytical, comprehensive literature review would be one of the strengths of the paper and could generate a more wide publicity.********** <font color="black"> 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. </font> Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: Nohttps://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. </div> While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  8 Jul 2022Please see 'Response to Reviewers.docx' for a complete response to the comments from editor and reviewers.AttachmentResponse to Reviewers.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 3 Aug 2022The green, gold grass of home: introducing open access in universities in NorwayPONE-D-22-07577R1Dear Dr. Wenaas,We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact Kind regards,István Tarrósy, PhDAcademic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments :The author has revised the original manuscript following the critical remarks and suggestions of the reviewers, which then resulted in an even more coherent and convincing paper. I find it relevant with a novum aspect sufficient for publication without requesting further changes or modifications.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions <font color="black"> Comments to the Author </font> 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressedReviewer #2: All comments have been addressed********** <font color="black"> 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? </font> The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?  </font> Reviewer #1: N/AReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. </font> The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 6. Review Comments to the Author </font> Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. Reviewer #1: General remarksThe authors revised their manuscript considerably. The literature review has been improved consistently. The manuscript has also been carefully corrected based on minor issues.All in all, the revised manuscript is relevant and valuable.Reviewer #2: The authors improved the paper about my previous recommendations. The paper represents a higher academic quality than the previous version. I can accept this version of the paper for publication without further changes.********** <font color="black"> 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. </font> Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: No********** 8 Aug 2022PONE-D-22-07577R1 The green, gold grass of home: introducing open access in universities in Norway Dear Dr. Wenaas:I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact plosone@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. István Tarrósy Academic EditorPLOS ONE


Manuscript reviewers and the accuracy of the review process are fundamental to the quality of a scientific journal and authors place tremendous confidence in peer reviewers’ impartiality. In recent years, the extent of conflict of interest (COI) in medical journals has been increasingly recognized. Generally, COI represents a situation which in an individual’s judgment concerning a primary interest tends to be unduly influenced (or biased) by a secondary interest . More spIn line with guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, medical journals ask authors to report financial COI and non-financial COI (NCOI) that may be relevant in assessing the content of their manuscripts . FinanciGenerally, NCOI may be defined as a set of circumstances that creates a risk that the primary interest—the quality and integrity of the systematic review—will be unduly influenced by a secondary or competing interest that is not mainly financial . UnfortuDouble-blinded peer review should be the undisputed basis of each scientific journal, even for small research fields. Single-blinded or unblinded peer review process could be potentially related to NCOI.Specific and explicit public disclosure of NCOI, besides financial COI, should be obligatory when handling or reviewing submitted articles.Tomography allows researchers to recommend three to five reviewers and these names are taken into consideration provided that potential reviewers hold no COI/NCOI with any of the authors, do not come from the same institution of the authors, do not have published together with the authors in the last three years, have a proven experience and publication record in the field of the submitted paper, and hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.Authors can propose potential reviewers for their manuscript, provided the absence of manifest COI and NCOI. Independent reviewers should be preferentially selected from other countries although this may possible, especially if the manuscript deals with a small research area. This could be the ideal solution and should be supported by most scientific journals, although country borders mau not represent a limitation to NCOI since authors tend to know each other anyway. However, the use of double-blinded peer review could act synergically with this item.It should be not allowed, as stated by most journal guidelines, to add additional co-authors after the first round of revision in order to avoid authors related to reviewers being added.Reviewers’ names should be published after manuscript acceptance so that they can be publicly known. This could represent a challenging task if reviewers know they cannot perform reviewing process anonymously, especially considering the crisis of the reviewing process . HoweverThe consequences of failing to disclose COI or NCOI providing an unethical review, based on conscious or unconscious bias, should put a reviewer on a blacklist such that a journal would likely decline to work with this reviewer. Unfortunately, since assessing a NOCI is very challenging, this might be very difficult to put into practice.When manuscripts are submitted to journals, editors seek out experts in the field for revision. It is generally accepted that a reviewer should assess a manuscript in his own field since this is considered a guarantee of competent assessment. The proof is a reasonable publication record of the selected reviewer in the research field . Unfortu


The editorial review board, the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology (NZIMRT) acknowledge the following peer reviewers for sharing their valuable time and knowledge. Thank you for your rigorous reviews.James StanleyKamarul AbdullahSibusiso MdletsheAndrew KilgourMaram AlakhrasCatriona HargraveDean PatersonEric Pei Ping PangEdel DoyleGay DungeyGeorgia HalkettHesta Friedrich‐NelJohn RobinsonKelly LloydMichael NeepMarilyn BairdNigel AndersonPeter O'ReillySally AyesaVicki BraithwaiteTheophilus AkudjeduEmel AllanFarhannah AlyVikneswary BatumalaiCrispen ChamunyongaJillian ClarkeJenna DeanChristopher EdwardsRhys FitzgeraldTherese GunnPeter HoggMelissa JamesYobelli JimenezScott JonesStephen KnightHeather LawrenceChandra MakanjeeTracey PieterseAnn PoulosChristopher RumleyDaniel SapkaroskiMeegan ShepherdClare SinghTony SmithTom SteffensZhonghua SunRhonda‐Joy SweeneyCaitlin TuXiaoming ZhengAlison BrownAmy BrownAllison DryAileen DufftonDaniel Al MouieeFahim AlamChristine AlbantowEssam AlkhybariWijdan AlomaimJennife AlphonseKholoud AlzyoudSaba AnsariSimon AshworthJohn AtyeoJohn BainesJames BalterJeffrey BarberMurat BaykaraSarah BergaminPauline BolandJerome BreitenbergerMathias BresselElizabeth BrownMichael A. BrunoGlenn CahoonRaphael CheePhillip ChlapThomas CochraneScott CroweGeoffrey CurrieGary DenhamKaren DobeliLaia DomingoKathleene DowerGay DungeyErnest EkpoDoaa ElwadiaBrendan ErskineAnthony EspinozaGiovanna FerraioliKaren FinlayZiba GandomkarStuart GreenhamChristopher HayreLynne HazellJohnathan HewisBronwyn HilderJonathan HindmarshSahand HooshmandLin‐Fen HsiehJulie HughesHing HungManish JainHazel JenkinsMichael JenkinsRebecca JudePaul KaneMaeve KearneyAlannah KejdaPeter KenchAdam KesnerLaurence KimElin Kjelle,Shivani KumarGinna LambertDrew LattyWencke LehnertShantel LewisEe Shern LiangJens LobergPaul LockwoodElsebeth LyngeSharon MaresseKristie MatthewsLachlan McDowellSonyia McFaddenMatthew McGrailJohn McInerneyStuart MoreAndrew MurphyKathleen NaidooGlen NewmanCurtise K.C. NgSweet Ping NgHenrik NilssonHyunsoo NoDon NocumKatrina O'KeefeMarcus OliveiraRachael O'RourkeVanessa PanettieriPremal PatelAlison PearceKlas PekkariBenjamin PetersonNatalie PollardOwen RaffelClare RaineyGita RalleighMajella RussoMichael SavageLaurel SchmidtMichal SchneiderAnna SeeleyMadeleine ShanahanMihir ShankerTrishna ShimpiMichala ShortLucy SimLawrie SkinnerBeverly SnaithSergio Solís BarqueroKelly SpuurDeborah StarkeyAdam StewardKate StewartM'oayyad SuleimanKristie SweeneyHitoshi TakeuchiJo ThorogoodSylvia Van DykStefaan VandenbergheLuke WebbNick WoznitzaAkira YamadaMichael YingAdrienne YoungWiley Journal Reviewershttps://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/index.htmlWiley Researcher Academy: Becoming a Peer Reviewerhttps://upskillstudio.researcher.life/p/wiley-researcher-academy-becoming-a-peer-reviewerWeb of Science Academyhttps://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-academy/Are you new to conducting and writing peer reviews? Check out these free peer reviewer guidelines and self‐directed modules and assess the quality of your peer review.JMRS reviewers can opt in to have their peer review contribution automatically added on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services (formerly Publons). The authors remain confidential when the peer review contribution is recorded.https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/recognition-for-reviewers/publons.htmlFor more information please go to,


Correction to: GeroScience10.1007/s11357-021-00431-0The original version of this article contained errors in the affiliation and funding sections.D. Craig Willcox’s affiliations should read ‘Department of Research, Kuakini Medical Center, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA’ and ‘Okinawa International University, Okinawa, Japan’. The authors would also like to acknowledge receipt of additional grant funding from the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (Grant P20GM103466).


Traditionally, access to research information has been restricted through journal subscriptions. This means that research entities and individuals who were unable to afford subscription costs did not have access to journal articles. There has however been a progressive shift toward electronic access to journal publications and subsequently growth in the number of journals available globally. In the context of electronic journals, both open access and restricted access options exist. While the latter option is comparable to traditional, subscription-based paper journals, open access journal publications follow an “open science” publishing model allowing scholarly communications and outputs to be publicly available online at no cost to the reader. However, for readers to enjoy open access, publication costs are shifted elsewhere, typically onto academic institutions and authors. SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the benefits of open science through accelerated research and unprecedented levels of collaboration and data sharing. South Africa is one of the leading open access countries on the African continent. This paper focuses on open access in the South African higher education research context with an emphasis on our Institution and our own experiences. It also addresses the financial implications of open access and provides possible solutions for reducing the cost of publication for researchers and their institutions. Privacy in open access and the role of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in medical research and secondary use of data in South Africa will also be discussed. Traditional subscription-based publishing models where individuals or institutions pay subscription fees in order to gain access to scientific material have been the modus operandi for many years. More recently, “Open Science,” a global movement that aims to make the conduct and dissemination of research methods and results accessible to all, has been gaining traction. This is done in order to promote transparency and collaboration to the benefit of the global community  were authored by African scientists and just 4.3% contained information specific to Africa and/or African countries  which is the ratio of citations to the number of citable publications published by a given journal. It is calculated based on a two-year period where the number of annual citations is divided by the number of publications in the previous 2 years . Credibility is often reflected by the number of citations a publication has received, which in turn, increases the journal's IF.Dissemination of research information can be accelerated through preprints and expedited peer-review and publishing processes, as was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journals indexed in major databases such as Medline, Scopus and PubMed are considered to be of acceptable scientific quality. A journal's publishing history and scope are likewise considered important and are reflected in the journal's impact. These measures affect the relative importance of journals in a field and also reflect the journal's reach. When deviating from these well-established publication practices, publications may end up in predatory journals. “Predatory” journals and publishers make false claims and provide misleading information to manipulate authors into publishing therein. Several predatory journals have author-pays practices and should be avoided, since publishing in such journals may harm the reputation of the authors and their affiliated institutions, and provides a highly questionable way around the all-important peer-review process.This section serves to explore themes associated with open access publications, preprints and predatory journals.Medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association are published in both paper and electronic formats. These journals rely on association membership fees and journal subscriptions to cover publication costs. With the growth of digital media, publication cost and revenue models have changed, and new funding models have had to be developed. Publishing open access allows readers to have immediate access without the need for subscriptions through institutions. Various types of open access models exist, and includes gold, green, bronze, hybrid, and diamond. The majority of open access journals, with the exception of the latter, incur a cost to the authors and/or funders for peer-review and publication, referred to as article processing charges (APCs). Gold open access is when authors and funders pay for published articles to allow immediate access without any restrictions. With green open access, a self-archived version of the manuscript is made available through an open access repository or website  has benefits for both the researcher responsible for the article as well as the institution they belong to. Increased access and readership will likely result in improved citation that might lead to wider visibility for authors and their institutions  published a report entitled “Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences”  of the Department of Immunology in the Faculty of Health Science at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. The ICMM is a transdisciplinary, translational, highly collaborative entity that aims to understand and manage specific contributors to the disease burden in South Africa and Africa. Active research projects cover a wide range of disciplines and entities, with a particular focus on molecular, cell and computational biology, and the ethical, legal, and social implications of research in cell and gene therapy. The ICMM comprises senior researchers, post-doctoral scientists, and postgraduate students of medical, scientific, ethical, data sciences and legal disciplines. Research papers are prepared and submitted for publication to a wide spectrum of academic journals.African research groups are uniquely positioned and able to more accurately perform, collaborate with, sustain and describe research endeavors in Africa  journals and excludes monographs, book chapters and publications. Since support is dependent on the availability of funds, payment is not guaranteed. As such, the university urges researchers to request a waiver of APCs from target journals and to request APC support from the library services before submitting articles to journals.While reimbursements and financial “rewards” for publications are provided at some academic institutions, the financial resources to do so must come from somewhere. The University of Pretoria, as with most other academic institutions in South Africa, receives a subsidy per publication in an accredited journal from the South African government on an annual basis through the DHET. This subsidy is allocated to the Institution, Faculties, Schools, Departments and ultimately to academics according to various payment structures determined by the institution itself. Funding to academics who raise the funding, do the research and publish their manuscripts is on an While we have some appreciation of APCs relative to South African institutions, the true cost of open access for researchers based in LMICs is largely unknown  equates to a staggering revenue of ZAR52.8 billion, and net profit of ZAR38.44 billion. This represents roughly 95% of the ZAR40.4 billion and 15% of the ZAR259 billion budget respectively allocated toward provincial hospital services and the entire public health sector for the 2022 financial period by the South African Treasury [National Treasury (RSA), As a consequence of high profit margins, there has been a proliferation of publishing houses and journals and the capacity for academic journals to turn the situation of production costs on its head. For example, a traditional newspaper, whose profit tends to be 10–15%, incurs expenses for wages for its journalists, editors, and graphic artists, as well as expenses for research, printing, and distribution, all paid through sales and advertising. In the case of academic journals, production cost are paid for by research funds, researcher salaries, and the costs involved in undertaking research. However, academic editors receive symbolic pay, as quality control and fact-checking are done through peer-review, which is voluntary. Most of the access is digital, and therefore the only real cost incurred by the publisher is for graphic design of the article Hagve, .For publishing houses, open access has provided a new way to generate a profit. However, it comes at a high cost to authors, with the price of publication often ranging from US$1 500–US$3 000 in a fully open access journal, and up to US$6 000 in traditional subscription journals. Although open access fees are transparent, revenue may also be generated through other means  is a non-profit organization that facilitates the process involved in obtaining licensing agreements for electronically accessed information. Members of SANLiC notably include public higher education and research institutions SANLiC, . FurtherThe total amount that South Africa spends on journal subscriptions is unknown. This is largely due to the fact that university libraries, research departments, and research institutions each have their own budgets for this. Additionally, there is a lack of transparency regarding publisher fees owing to nondisclosure agreements signed by research institutions  but has also included the cataloging of journals that facilitate and promote open access publications by University library services  “to support several Open Access initiatives, including the Berlin Declaration”; (2) “to ensure that research conducted at the University is conducted to the highest possible standard, is made freely available to increase local and global visibility, and facilitates greater research impact and benefit to all stakeholders”; (3) “to honor ethical research and business standards, contractual obligations, legal restrictions, archiving requirements of research funders, and publishers' copyright regulations”; (4) “to support global initiatives to influence the current copyright practices of publishers and authors thereby expanding the rights of its authors and researchers”; and (5) “to provide directives for the archiving and dissemination of academic journal articles, conference papers and creative outputs authored or co-authored by University of Pretoria researchers which have been or will be published”.The aim of this policy is to ensure that all published University of Pretoria research and creative outputs are available for use within the University and are freely accessible to any other student, researcher, or member of the public with a non-commercial requirement for access to the information. The policy applies to all postgraduate students, research staff, employees, visiting researchers, and postdoctoral fellows engaged in publishing and/or disseminating research outputs under the auspices of the University, even when they co-author with researchers from other institutions. Other sections in the policy include a policy statement, definitions, associated documents, roles and responsibilities of authors, Deans of Faculties, and the Department of Library Services, and describe where it is not applicable as well as the consequences of non-compliance. The policy is reviewed every 3 years.via restricted access by the Department of Library Services. This policy is also reviewed every 3 years. The current policy was reviewed in 2018 and remains unchanged.In July 2014, the University approved their Policy on Open Access Publishing Processing Charges  agreements in March 2022 with the following publishers: Wiley, Emerald, and Association for Computing Machinery  of POPIA suggests that it is only permissible to request specific consent from participants. Under this interpretation, unless consent for sharing of specific data and/or samples is obtained at the onset of the study, it is not possible for researchers to engage in data/sample sharing practices  does not contribute to APCs for hybrid journals. Recently signed agreements between select publishers and research institutions like the University of Pretoria and others in South Africa have created an opportunity for complete fee waiving on select hybrid journals , governments and funding agencies need to adopt and improve open access initiatives in support of African research. The number of open access journals that offer fee waivers for LMICs should be increased to broaden journal options for publication. Until all countries and scientific communities have equal access to all research available, the impact of open access will remain limited and inequitable.AS and MSP completed the final preparation and editing of the manuscript. JVR, JM, and AA created the tables and figures. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.This work was supported by the South African Medical Research Council Extramural Unit for Stem Cell Research and Therapy and the University of Pretoria through the Institute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine. AS, JM, JVR, and MSP receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-022216).The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Science progress relies heavily on reproducibility and intersubjectivity. In science, intersubjectivity is when knowledge is communicated clearly between individuals and independently verified. It is the shared agreement and understanding of methods, results, and interpretations of scientific research that enables knowledge to be reviewed, revised, and established. Here, I focus on the reproducibility issues pertaining to the relatively young area of large-scale graphene synthesis and applications, proposing possible solutions to improve the reliability of published results and accelerate their commercialisation. More than a decade after the first demonstration of large-scale graphene synthesis by chemical vapor deposition, the commercialization of graphene products is limited not only by price, but also by consistency, reproducibility, and predictability. Here, the author discusses the reproducibility issues in the field and proposes possible solutions to improve the reliability of published results. Despite of a large number of scientific papers on large-scale graphene and manufacturing-oriented technology, practical applications are still rare. The commercialization of CVD graphene products is limited not only by price, but also by consistency, reproducibility, and predictability. Also for graphene-based bulk materials (powders and solutions) the issue of variations in quality leading to mistrust and slow commercial adoption was discussed previously by Kauling et al.2 and Bøggild3. As an example, the 2D Experimental Pilot Line (2D-EPL), a 20-million Euro ecosystem of technologies and facilities in Europe, aims at establishing reproducible pilot line manufacturing and integration of 2D materials with silicon wafers. Professor Max Lemme (2D EPL steering group) explained that for this to succeed, standardized process modules and characterization, as well as statistically relevant amounts of data are crucial: “While original and exciting ideas are extremely valuable for exploring new concepts, reproducibility, standardization, and benchmarking are essential when translating science into production. This mindset should be reflected in scientific literature”.Since the first demonstrations of large-scale graphene synthesissounds simple enough. Let me focus on one notorious aspect of large-area graphene: the transfer process. Graphene is grown on a catalytic substrate (often copper) by CVD, transferred to a target substrate, where further device fabrication and integration can proceed. In terms of fulfilling expectations for applications in electronics, optics, and barriers, the challenge is to carry out the transfer process rapidly, at a low cost, while maintaining the outstanding physical properties of a just 0.3 nm thin sheet of carbon atoms. The low dimensionality of the material leaves it highly susceptible to contamination, wrinkles, and interface roughness, all of which compromise the quality and consistency needed for disrupting anything.It Unsurprisingly, the transfer process turns out to be critically important, and unfortunately also delicate and difficult; after all, a graphene sheet is 40000 times thinner than plastic wrap. After the publication of nearly 3000 scientific articles on 2D material transfer, many of which claim to have solved the problem - partly or fully - the community is still intensively working on the matter. Why?In our laboratory, we have faithfully contributed to the myriad of transfer methods, as well as attempted to reproduce transfer methods published in literature. However, we find that the latter is often surprisingly difficult, even when following the reported methodology to the letter. We often circumvent the problem by altering the method so much that we end up with a “new”, incrementally different method that we can then decide to publish in yet another article. Perhaps of more use for the community would be to report on our attempts to reproduce the original method. Such an article, however, is significantly harder to publish. Consequently, we get infinite variations instead of instant verification. A quick Google image search on “Graphene transfer process” effectively illustrates the issue of such incremental method mutations.4 in Nature Communications on the dry assembly of van der Waals materials, basically a method paper with little novel physics. We set out to make the description of the method as transparent, complete, and thorough as possible. We carefully reported on all samples and measurements, from the best to the worst, to give an honest picture of the performance and yield. One reviewer asked us to repeat the study with a new set of samples, which we did. We included all details that might help readers reproduce our results. To our surprise, we still received numerous requests for help from researchers having trouble reproducing the results. The leading postdocs, Bjarke Sørensen Jessen and Lene Gammelgaard, operated an ad-hoc helpdesk service for several years after publication of the article. Looking back, we could have achieved our original goals of transparency and reproducibility by asking independent groups to replicate our method before publishing the work.In 2016, we published an articleIn general, the research papers we encounter in the field focus more on describing which procedures they followed, and less on guiding readers toward achieving similar results. This is a subtle but significant difference.5 later published in Nature Communications, I raised concerns regarding the reproducibility of work from an excellent, highly reputed research group at Beijing University. The quality of the data was impressive, but I was uncertain whether colleagues could achieve similar results based on the article. I was worried that the outstanding results presented in the manuscript could be the result of a very well-oiled machine – the mastery of the complex fabrication and characterisation steps - rather than the superiority of the specific method in question. As it happened, the authors of the manuscript responded to the criticism by documenting thoroughly that an independent research group had indeed reproduced the work. Apart from immediately putting my concerns to rest, it struck me how seldom I see anything like this. Imagine how much more powerful “methods”-oriented publications would be if they routinely communicated acceptance windows, robustness, operation ranges, consistency, yield, and repeatability in a clear, standardized, and systematic manner. If more articles tried to establish and document intersubjectivity, such as for instance the article by Cheng et al.6 on how to report and benchmark emerging field effect-transistors, individual fields would evolve more steadily and rapidly.In a recent review that I carried out for a manuscript7 entitled “1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility” published in Nature in 2016. The article sparked a staggering number of 1700 citations and an altimetric score of 5000. Additionally, 80% of the respondents felt that funders and publishers should do more to improve reproducibility.These considerations are part of a wider debate that followed an article7, I feel that the rule book of the funding and publishing game should be updated to encourage or even enforce a higher degree of reproducibility, and that this could have a lasting impact on the field and the technology everybody is waiting for. COARA, launched by the European Union in 2022, seeks to reform research assessment in evaluations of individual researchers as well as organizations. This initiative has hundreds of funding institutions already signed on. One passage in the agreement reads: “Openness of research, and results that are verifiable and reproducible where applicable, strongly contribute to quality. Openness corresponds to early knowledge and data sharing, as well as an open collaboration including societal engagement where appropriate.” The agreement aims to alter the rules of the massive game that modern research in my view has become. Another example is the Validation’s reproducibility initiative, which seeks to reward and identify high-quality reproducible research via independent validation of key experimental results. It was founded by, among others, Mendeley and PLOS. The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative goes the extra mile by repeating between 60 and 100 published experiments, each in three different laboratories throughout the country9. A number of initiatives like this exist across a wide variety of research fields; perhaps the most famous is the 8-year Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology (RPCB), which reported that half of top cancer studies failed to be replicated10.In line with the respondents to the Nature surveyClearly, publishers and editors of high-impact journals are central stakeholders in the symbiotic relationship between scientists and distributors of science. Imagine a novel form of scientific publication, where reproduction studies are actively encouraged or required in analogy to how many publishers require data availability statements. If an article had a formal reproducibility statement with extensive details on yield, robustness, guidelines, and results of independent verification, this would be without question scrutinized by any researcher attempting to build on the research. Original journal publications may be linked to other studies that reproduce them and vice versa. Active discussion threads where researchers could share reports on their efforts to verify the the published results, or assist colleagues with guidance, would be highly desirable. For this to work, the efforts of reproducing research need to be praised, credited, and recognized. Imagine if along with the main paper, a handful of brief, concise reports from independent groups on reproducibility and yield were available. Over the past 15 years of 2D material research in my team, such a practice could have saved us years of reinvention, reverse engineering, and dead ends.Despite various reproducibility efforts, I believe that the lack of support for reproducibility and inter-subjectivity is a structural problem of the scientific community that holds several negative consequences: a focus on news value over quality, a slowing of scientific progress, and finally a decrease in adoption of innovative technologies. The industry cannot stay on standby while researchers continue to invent incrementally different solutions.11; that fewer and fewer papers reveal radical advances in knowledge that challenge existing paradigms. In this study, “disruption” was measured by the CD index12: the more groundbreaking an article is, the less the subsequent citing articles would cite previous work.Paradoxically, the hunt for novelty over reproducibility could be the enemy of disruptive research as well as technological progress. A study published in Nature in 2023 stated that the proportionality of disruptive ideas per scientist has been steadily declining13 in Nature that “scientific genius is extinct”, as research progresses in larger and larger teams with fewer original ideas. I believe that the core values of intersubjectivity not only support but precede disruptive research. A truly sharp idea may well be overlooked in the haystack of incremental, “micro-original” articles. An idea only becomes disruptive, if it is noted in the sea of noise, and reproduced.These ideas have been around for a while. A decade ago, Simonton arguedBy now, after multiple reports and extensive media attention, most researchers and publishers must be aware of these issues. The question is whether it is possible to update the reward system of the “science game”, most researchers play. If so, how, and when? And by whom? The disruptive shift that occurs when novel information challenges established knowledge cannot take place without intersubjectivity. If we don’t understand, acknowledge and respect how knowledge is formed, we will not be able to bow to it. The common ground of the scientific community is based on shared language, standards, norms, methods - and reproducibility.


As the pandemic wanes and 2023 has begun, Epilepsy & Behavior Reports (EBR) has many people to thank for publishing a number of high-quality submissions during the course of the pandemic. Our goal at EBR is to become the most-read epilepsy journal available on the world-wide web for the public via open access. Novel case reports and case series, full-length manuscripts, review articles, short communications, and letters to the editor are acceptable formats. Lay abstracts, topical issues, special issues and more in 2022 further enhanced the journal by increasing the use of social media. We hoped to increase awareness of our relevant articles to help clinicians manage their patients with epilepsy and the behavioral consequences. By highlighting clinical epilepsy, the surgical approaches to treatment, new information on antiseizure medication, pertinent semiology and behavior, scalp/intracranial EEG, psychological and social issues, we hope to add to new approaches facilitating tools to guide accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment to patients with epilepsy.In the last year EBR has grown with our editors and editorial board to boast many achievements. Our peer-reviewed journal engages an average of at least 2 reviews/submission. Many thanks to Steve Schachter as founding editor-in-chief for the opportunity to work alongside many wonderful colleagues with a singular focus. The experience has been unforgettable and an adventure. Thank you to Jerzy P. Szaflarski MD, PhD for assuming the next role as editor-in-chief. On 12/31/2022 I completed a 7 year path with the comforting thought that EBR would be meticulously cared for by my successor. Many thanks to Dr. Kurupath Radhakrishnan for an amazingly strong partnership as Associate Editor. Equally so, to Dr. Barry Gidal for providing longitudinal and outstanding input and article summaries for our lay readership. Thanks to Dr. Arthur Grant for taking on an impossible role with vigor, and Dr. Sallie Baxendale for her concept of inaugural Special Issues. To the entire Editorial Board including past Associate Editors, Drs. Joe Sirven and Dorothee Kasteleijn-Nolste, thank you for your constant support! I have always appreciated the advice and support you have graciously given me over the years. Special thanks to Mehroon Farooqui who works tirelessly to make the entire EBR engine run. You have all been a delight to work with managing EBR. For our reviewers who dedicate their expert volunteer time providing timely reviews- my sincere gratitude and appreciation.To produce a top-ranked journal, there are multiple members of the team required. We welcome Mary Ma as our newly appointed publisher, and do not forget Daniel Staemmler and Annie Zhao for their past personal support to the journal. As the first quarter of 2023 unfolds, we look forward to acquiring an impact factor for EBR this year. Many new and exciting ideas are evolving under new leadership, and as I close my tenure at EBR, I am humbled by the confidence given to me by Dr. Schachter, past and present associate editors, the EBR board, expert reviewers, and our colleagues at Elsevier who helped make my work as editor-in-chief successful to bring novel and relevant publication to our readers. If you are considering sharing or learning from key reports on rare, unexpected, and unique discoveries in people with epilepsy and the behavioral consequences, EBR is right for you.


Retraction: Sakakibara, N., Makita, K., Hiraoka, D., Kasaba, R., Kuboshita, R., Shimada, K., Fujisawa, T. X., & Tomoda, A. (2021). Increased resting‐state activity in the cerebellum with mothers having less adaptive sensory processing and trait anxiety. Human Brain Mapping, 42(15), 4985– 4995. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25594. The above from Human Brain Mapping, published online on 16 July 2021 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Simon B. Eickhoff and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. The retraction has been agreed given the journal has received evidence confirming that the peer review process of this paper was manipulated. As a result, the conclusions reported in the article are not considered reliable.


Gender equity has become an important priority for society, including medicine and other health professions. Despite several decades of progress toward gender parity in medical school matriculation, training, and practice, there is a persistent lack of gender equity at senior rank and leadership positions.Dissemination of new ideas, novel curricula, policy innovations, and scientific advances through publication is a well-established form of recognition and advancement. For physicians and researchers, publication is an essential requirement for advancement and is widely considered an indicator of success. In this issue, Bohme et al. published a comprehensive analysis of 10 years of English-language publications in pediatrics, which included many pediatric disciplines and multiple countries. The central question was whether there is gender equity in research engagement, as measured by publication. Based on a large sample of articles and authors, the authors reported that women were overrepresented as first authors and co-authors, relative to men, and underrepresented as senior authors. They computed the Prestige index, which compares the gender ratio at the more prestigious first and last authorship positions, and reported temporal improvement toward gender equity. When the authors compared the gender equity profile of publications according to pediatric discipline, there was a nearly universal pattern of female underrepresentation as senior authors. However, there was a temporal trend toward increasing representation as senior authors, which augurs gender equity in publication in the “near future.”1 The challenge of enhancing gender diversity along the scholarly continuum will require active engagement from individuals, leaders, institutions, and organizations. For example, institutions and organizations could establish or modify policies and programs in order to mitigate adverse impacts on career development. Recently, the University of California, San Francisco modified its policies related to family formation and expanded faculty members’ paid childbearing and childrearing leave to 12 weeks. After the initial phase of family formation, however, it may still be difficult for research-focused faculty members to balance the work-non-work continuum amidst the ever-changing needs and pressures associated with raising a family. Even if women experience more difficulty as junior and mid-career faculty members as compared to men, it may be dangerously inaccurate to assume that they are less committed to or invested in their careers. Organizations such as the Association of American Medical Colleges and Drexel University’s Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine have well-established professional development programs for female and underrepresented faculty members. Finally, while women are more likely to have part-time employment than men, the pandemic has catapulted many institutions and organizations into considering alternative models of employment, which may ultimately have positive or negative impacts on gender disparities.It is difficult to measure progress toward gender equity because there is no universal definition. Representation is an appealing proxy because it is quantifiable but it may not accurately reflect inclusion. Engagement in research and publication is an important dimension of scientific inclusion and the article by Boehm et al. suggests that publication could be considered an objective and reproducible measure of inclusion. Whereas authorship used to be assigned in an honorific fashion, organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors have clearly defined the expectations and authors are expected to follow the recommendations. In Boehm et al.’s international study of 10 years of publications in pediatrics, male authors were more productive than female authors and nearly two-thirds of female authors published only one manuscript. The authors propose that the “leaking pipeline” contributes to the lack of productivity and paucity of women at senior rank. They suggest that gender-based differences in career aspirations and a lack of female role models also contribute to gender-based differences in publication. Promising Practices is the report from a recent consensus study undertaken by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that highlighted the importance of institutional and structural barriers that affect many women in STEM fields, in addition to personal circumstances.The Journal of Pediatrics.2 Based on an analysis of all original research articles submitted to the journal over 2 consecutive years (2015–2016), there was no difference in reviewers’ recommendations or editors’ decisions based on the gender of the corresponding author. However, there were two gender-based differences in the publication process. First, women who were invited to review articles were less likely to accept the review invitation as compared to men; second, female editors had lower acceptance rates than male editors. Williams et al.’s results were similar to a previous study of articles submitted to JAMA in 1991.3 Taken together, the studies of these prestigious publications suggest that there is no systematic bias against studies submitted by female corresponding authors but that gender influences certain aspects of the review process. It is not clear if the editorial experience of these journals is representative and editors could analyze their own experience to assess whether there is any evidence of gender-based publication bias. For example, in the study by Boehm et al., Pediatric Research is approaching gender equity in authors (45.5%), the FAOR triplet profile was , and the Prestige Index was 0.0 (Table 2). Around the world, pediatric editorial boards may review their journal’s data profile, in addition to the standard measures of success and impact. For everyone who is “invited” to review manuscripts, I encourage you to actively engage in supporting the research process, which is founded on the principle of objective review by qualified experts.For journal editors and editorial board members, several study findings are relevant. First, over the 10-year study period, there was no relationship between the proportion of female authors and the impact factor. At a time when we seek to understand the impact of diversity on organizational and institutional metrics of success, the results suggest that a temporal shift toward more female authors is not a major driver of impact factor. Since publication is the final step in a long scholarly pathway, future analyses could also consider the role of the journal selection, manuscript submission, and review processes, which include journal editors and manuscript reviewers. Williams et al. analyzed the role of gender in publication in To assess progress toward gender equity in scientific publishing and research, the use of name is an interesting measure because it is not fixed and may be an imprecise indicator of sex. Even with a sophisticated algorithm, one-quarter of authors initially selected for the study had “unisex” or non-identifiable names, which resulted in their exclusion from the study sample. Moreover, articles from China and South Korea had disproportionately high proportions of unisex names, which limits the interpretation of gender equity in those countries. In addition to the inherent limitations of algorithms that assign sex on the basis of name, the measure is binary, which excludes non-binary individuals and limits our interpretation of the findings. To address these issues, journals may consider asking authors to self-report sex and other demographic characteristics at the time of manuscript submission.Boehm et al. documented, in their analysis of 10 years of publications, that women in pediatrics are highly engaged in research and publication. Asking and answering scientific questions is of fundamental importance to our profession, the “coin” of our realm, and the authors documented near-equity in gender representation among authors, with disproportionate representation among first authors. Given the dramatic temporal increase in women who have enrolled in medical school, it is encouraging that our community of research scholars has diversified, and we should be proud that pediatric researchers have achieved a greater level of gender diversity than many other medical disciplines. To monitor progress toward gender equity in scientific scholarship, publication metrics could be considered a biomarker and tracked by journal editors. The analysis of gender diversity at specific authorship positions suggests an impending “trickle over” toward senior authorship. A similar analytic approach could be employed to assess progress toward racial/ethnic equity in publication, as long as the data used to define gender, race/ethnicity or any other measure of diversity were self-reported, rather than assigned, to minimize inaccurate or misleading assignments. The path to a health professional or research career is long and the results by Boehm et al. suggest that publication metrics may be a useful “leading indicator” of equity and inclusion.