The open access availability of publications by Catalonia’s CERCA research centres was analysed to determine the extent to which authors use open access journals, repositories, social networks and other websites to disseminate their research results. A sample of 3,730 journal articles published by authors from CERCA research centres between 2011 and 2015 and available on Web of Science  was analysed to identify how many were available in open access, full-text format. The results revealed that 75,8% of the total  had at least one version available in open access, but just 52%  had at least one version available in either journals  or repositories, a finding that highlights the powerful role played by academic social networks in the sharp increase in open access availability. Of the 2,828 articles for which at least one open access version was found, a total of 9,868 copies were located. With respect to versions, the publisher’s final version, i.e. the type formatted for publication by journal publishers, was found in 75,3% of cases. The number of articles published in open access journals (567) was very close to the number of articles published in hybrid journals or journals with embargo periods (624). Only 40,4% of the articles in the sample were located in repositories, being the subject repositories the heaviest used. Fifty percent of the articles  were posted on academic social networks, the most popular of which were ResearchGate and Academia. According to thematic areas, all six areas  exceeded 70% of articles in open access. The Budapest Open Access Initiative defined Open Access to scientific communication as:”free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited”. Sixteen years after, interest in open access publication has increased significantly among all scientific communication stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, funding bodies and publishers. As highlighted by Pinfield , currentMoreover, recent European Commission recommendations on access to and preservation of scientific information  placed vTherefore, a growing number of studies are being conducted to analyse the open access availability of scientific publications both globally and by country or institution type. A brief review of these is provided below.One of the first such studies was published by Björk  and was Laakso et al.  publisheIn another longitudinal study, Laakso and Björk  measuredArchambault  publisheIn 2016, the European Commission  presenteIn that same year, Laakso and Lindman  analysedA recent study by Pinowar  highlighWith regard to studies by country, Fathli  analysedA study was published by the Research Information Network  on the oZhang and Watson  studied With respect to Spain, two studies on the degree of compliance with Article 37 of the Science Act, which stipulates that articles resulting from publicly funded projects be published in open access, presented conflicting data. According to data from Borrego , 58.4% oWe observed that many of the studies on the open access of publications have focused on universities and, to a lesser extent, on research centres, even though they are highly competitive entities with a high-impact scientific output. Our objective was to analyse research centres, with a specific focus on a network of Catalan research centres belonging to the Catalan government’s CERCA Institution that have achieved high levels of scientific output and international visibility. In doing so, our aim was to contribute fresh data to complement the existing studies, which are highly diverse in terms of both geographical scope and centre type.The research centres belonging to the CERCA Institution are independent bodies that form part of Catalonia’s public research, development and innovation system. A total of 9,000 researchers work in the centres. Forty percent of their funds come from the Catalan government (40%), while the remainder comes from competitive calls, service contracts, the exploitation of patents and sponsorships. The CERCA centres are divided into six thematic areas: science (eight centres), life sciences (five centres), health sciences (18 centres), social sciences (two centres), engineering and architecture (five centres) and the humanities (three centres). Appendix I includes a specific list for each centre.Director Lluís Rovira  reportedThe overall objective of our study was to analyse the open access availability of CERCA research centre publications to determine the extent to which authors use open access journals, repositories, social networks and other websites to disseminate their research results. The specific aim of the present study was to respond to the following questions:Q1: In what percentage and in what open access format  is CERCA’s scientific output available online?Q2: Are there differences between thematic areas when it comes to open access publications?Q3: To what degree are CERCA’s articles published in open access journals, hybrid journals or journals with embargo periods?Q4: How many of CERCA’s articles are archived in repositories, and which repositories are used most frequently?Q5: How many of CERCA’s articles are available through academic social networks?The SCIE, SSCI and AHCI databases of WoS (Clarivate) were used to identify the scientific output of the CERCA centres for the 2011–2015 period, and to extract basic the data concerning such output, based on the work that has been carried out by the BAC group  of the Catalan Foundation for Research to monitor affiliations. For each research centre, a search by affiliation (OG = Organization-Enhanced) was made in the WoS database. The search included all the variants of the names of each centre.Other potential sources were: the reports published on the websites of each centre, the annual reports issued by the CERCA Institution and the Scopus database (Elsevier). After having analysed these three sources, we concluded that it was not possible to retrieve the information required to conduct the study using them. With respect to Scopus, which has greater coverage of the social sciences, arts and humanities than WoS, no tool was available in this database to unify all the variants of the corporate name of the 40 centres analysed.Catalan Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (ICRPC) was excluded since its articles are not indexed in WoS. The Catalan Institute of Climate Sciences (IC3) and the Institute of Predictive and Personalized Medicine of Cancer (IMPPC) were also excluded since they are not currently listed as CERCA centres, even though they existed during the study period (2011–2015).Out of the 43 current CERCA centres, 40 were included in the study; the A total of 44,423 articles were published between 2011 and 2015. These were distributed very disproportionately between the 6 CERCA research areas and the 40 CERCA centres included in the study, since the number of researchers and other indicators, such as the number of projects, vary greatly between centres. We therefore opted for an approach based on 6 independent samples for each thematic area to which CERCA centres are linked, combined with an stratified random sample inside each area proportional to the output of each centre. The size of the six samples for each CERCA area was set at a confidence level of 95% and a sample error of 3%.Once the size of each sample had been established , the artThe references for the 3,730 articles were randomly extracted from Web of Science (WoS), without stratifying by year. This article selection process took place in July 2017.For each article selected, all fields in the full record and cited references (“Full record and cited references”) were extracted from Web of Science. After the extraction process, the data corresponding to the following fields were loaded into the database:Title of the articleAuthorsDOITitle of publicationYearVolume and issueWoS identifierResearch areaFunding Open access (inclusion in DOAJ)Our research focused on the degree of online availability of articles published by Catalonia’s CERCA research centres. The concept of open access was not applied in its most complete form, since we did not analyse the permitted uses of the copies found online , but rather their availability for free-of-charge consultation by other researchers and users in general. Thus, the study analysed the availability of online articles without the need to subscribe, purchase the article or register in any closed web environment, such as an intranet and restricted access environments. We therefore opted for the broader definition of open access proposed by Peter Suber , analysiThis is an important issue, also highlighted by the authors of the Science-Metrix study  and by MThe open availability of the articles in the samples was analysed between August and December 2017. Following the methodology used in previous studies such as Archambault (6) and Laakso (9), we searched the internet for each article using Google Scholar and Google, according to the procedure used by online researchers who do not consult specific websites such as journal portals, repositories  or the Sci-Hub database.In the case of Google Scholar, a maximum of 20 different copies for each article was consulted. This limit was generally sufficient for most centres, since the number of copies found for each article was lower. However, in the case of some centres in the field of science , Google Scholar returned a higher number of copies for some articles, which is why it was necessary to define a limit on the number of copies. In the case of Google, the first 10 hits were consulted, which normally correspond to the number of hits in the first screen of results. Also, the search procedure was carried out using the full title of each article, without quotation marks, first on Google Scholar and then on Google, in accordance with the methodology used in comprehensive research projects such as those carried out by Archambault  and PinoWhenever an article was found on a website, the full text was accessed to verify that the content actually corresponded to the full text, and other documents with the same title, such as presentations of oral communications and abstracts of articles, were discarded.Once the articles that were not available in open access had been discarded (those that were accessible only through subscription or in printed versions), each copy found was assigned to a unique category in accordance with the following classification:The article has been published in an open access journal or in a journal aggregator such as Scielo and Redalyc.The article has been published in a hybrid journal or in a journal with an embargo period.Article published in open access in a digital journal:Institutional repository within the CERCA centre itself.Institutional repository at a Catalan university linked to the CERCA centre.Institutional repositories of other organizations worldwide.A cooperative or consortium, such as RECERCAT , Scientia , HAL (French repository maintained by the Centre for Direct Scientific Communication) or DigitalCSIC .Subject-based repository such as arXiv, PubMed Central or SSRN.Orphan repository such as Zenodo.Article archived in a repository:Personal websites belonging to researchers or research groups/projects websites.Academic social networks such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate.Other: websites owned by companies, associations and banks, and websites such as CiteSeer, Semantic Scholar or CORE.Other options:Within the same category of the three options analysed , we collected as many different copies as were found. For each copy found, information on the version type  was extracted from the document or the article metadata.hybrid OA is difficult to measure with accuracy , since there are no easily available and reliable data” (p. 2).The journals in which open access articles were found were divided into two categories: those listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals , hybrids  and those that publish in open access after an embargo period. Note that making a distinction between open access journals and hybrids can be a challenging exercise, as highlighted by Fathli (2014): “The amount of In the first quarter of 2017, a pilot test was carried out with a total of 125 articles by six CERCA centres. This test was used to validate the proposed methodology and to verify that the requirements defined for the creation of the database for collecting all the information for the study were adequate. During the second quarter, the articles to be included in the samples were selected and loaded into the database. Finally, the work to locate the 3,740 sample articles online was carried out between August and December of that same year.Since the data were collected in 2017, articles published between 2011 and 2015 that may have been subject to an embargo period were probably already available in open access. We considered the most common embargo threshold to be 18 months.Of the 3,730 CERCA articles analysed, 75,8%  had one or more than one version available online in open access. The remaining 24,2% (902 articles) were not found in open access versions and, therefore, in principle, could be consulted only through a subscription or in their printed version. This calculation took account of all open access types included in the study, i.e. articles published in open access journals and articles with copies archived in repositories or included on any other type of website, including personal websites belonging to researchers and research groups or projects, social networks and other types of website such as Google Books and Internet Archive.However, this required an approach with a more precise definition of the concept of open access. In the Danish Open Access Barometer, Elbaek  defines By applying this more accurate approach to measuring the open access availability of the output of an institution, country, etc., the degree of open access of CERCA centre output decreased considerably, since just 52% of its scientific output  had one or more than one open access version available in repositories or in journals, whether pure open access or hybrid journals, or journals that publish content in open access after an embargo period. The remainder  had no online versions available through the green or gold routes.The 2011–2015 results for the CERCA centres were consistent with, and even exceeded, those produced by Archambault  based onThe degree of open access of the CERCA centres scientific output was found to be in line with the results of the studies of open access publications in the Seventh Framework Programme , which rBased on the results obtained in the analysis of three samples of 100,000 articles, a second large-scale study by Pinowar )Centre de Regulació Genòmica (CRG)Institut Català de Ciències Cardiovasculars (ICCC)Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM)Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques A. Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS)Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL)Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Girona (IDIBGI)Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili (IISPV)Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP)Institut de Bioenginyeria de Catalunya (IBEC)Institut de Recerca Biomèdica (IRB Barcelona)Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (IRB Lleida)Institut de Recerca Contra la Leucèmia Josep Carreras (IRCL)Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)Institut de Recerca de la Sida (IrsiCaixa)Institut de Salut Global de Barcelona Vall d'Hebron Institut d'Oncologia (VHIO)Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR)Social sciences:Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics (CED)Centre de Recerca en Economia Internacional (CREI)Engineering and architectureCentre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria (CIMNE)Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC)Centre de Visió per Computador (CVC)Institut de Recerca en Energia de Catalunya (IREC)Internet i Innovació Digital a Catalunya (I2CAT)Humanities:Institut Català d'Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC)Institut Català de Recerca en Patrimoni Cultural (ICRPC)Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES)


Peer reviewers of biomedical journals are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks, some of which are seemingly contradictory or demonstrate incongruities between the respective positions of peer reviewers and journal editors. Our aim was to explore the perspectives, expectations and understanding of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of journal editors from general and specialty biomedical journals.Qualitative study.Worldwide.56 journal editors from biomedical journals, most of whom were editors-in-chief (n=39), male (n=40) and worked part-time (n=50) at journals from 22 different publishers.Semistructured interviews with journal editors were conducted. Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. Data were analysed thematically following the methodology by Braun and Clarke.Journal editors’ understanding of the roles and partly of tasks of peer reviewers are profoundly shaped by each journal’s unique context and characteristics, including financial and human resources and journal reputation or prestige. There was a broad agreement among journal editors on expected technical tasks of peer reviewers related to scientific aspects, but there were different expectations in the level of depth. We also found that most journal editors support the perspective that authorship experience is key to high-quality reviews, while formal training in peer reviewing is not.These journal editors’ accounts reveal issues of a social nature within the peer-review process related to missed opportunities for journal editors to engage with peer reviewers to clarify the expected roles and tasks.Further research is needed on actual performance of peer reviewers looking into the content of peer-reviewer reports to inform meaningful training interventions, journal policies and guidelines. This study is one of few qualitative studies that explore biomedical journal editors’ views regarding the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.The participants were diverse in terms of characteristics related to the journals.The majority of the participants were editors-in-chief, which may limit the generalisability of the results.Peer reviewers of biomedical journals are key stakeholders in the editorial ecosystem, helping authors to improve manuscripts and providing advice to scientific editors on their decision regarding the acceptability of publishing papers. Despite their importance for scientific publishing, fundamental principles such as the roles, tasks and core competencies of peer reviewers—including a minimum standard of knowledge, skills and characteristics that are needed to effectively deliver high-quality reviewer reports—are neither well defined, agreed on nor formally established.Given that peer review is a social process that goes beyond the quality control of manuscripts,Our aim was to examine the experience of general and specialty biomedical journal editors and to characterise their perspectives, expectations and understanding of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.We conducted semistructured interviews with biomedical journal editors from general and specialty journals. The design of the study and reporting of study results were informed by relevant guidance for reporting qualitative research.Patients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination of our research, sampling and recruitment.We used purposive maximum variation samplingSince sample size is irreversibly linked to saturation, which in turn can only be operationalised during data collection,All interviews were conducted between October 2017 and February 2018 by the lead author (KG). Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone to accommodate for the geographical diversity and availability of study participants. They lasted 25–60 minutes.A topic guide  was used10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421.supp1Supplementary dataProspective interviewees were provided with a study consent form and a study information sheet that consisted of information about the researchers and study information . Interviewees were asked to sign a written consent form prior to being interviewed. Before starting the interview, study objectives were reiterated and additional information was provided where necessary.KG was a PhD student at the time of the interviews. She has previously experienced the peer-review process in biomedical journals as an author and peer reviewer and had undergone training in conducting qualitative interviews prior to data collection. She was supervised by DH, who has extensive experience of the peer-review process in biomedical journals as an author, peer reviewer and journal editor.Interviews were transcribed verbatim and fieldnotes were written up after every interview.All documents were then imported into NVivo V.12 and were subjected to thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke,et al, which provides a detailed description of how to conduct a trustworthy thematic analysis, was followed.To establish trustworthiness in this research, the step-by-step approach proposed by Nowell 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421.supp2Supplementary dataA total of 56 biomedical journal editors were interviewed . Of thesAn overview of the different domains within our two themes (roles of peer reviewers and tasks of peer reviewers) are presented in 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421.supp3Supplementary dataJournal editors outlined a variety of roles, which coalesced around four domains. Peer reviewers should be (1) proficient experts in their field qualified to peer review, (2) dutiful towards the scientific community versus volunteers who deserve recognition, (3) professionals and (4) advisors to the editor.There was agreement among journal editors that peer reviewers are experts in their field when they (1) have expertise and demonstrate high-level knowledge in their subject area, (2) are up to date with existing evidence and practice guidelines and (3) have experience of publishing their own research. However, there was substantial disagreement on how these criteria are defined and understood and how ‘expertise’ is operationalised.One common narrative was that qualified peer reviewers are ‘experienced authors’ who have a strong reputation and publication record in ‘high-impact journals’. Concurrently, a number of journal editors linked the quality of the peer-review report with the reviewers’ writing and analytical skills, which they believed are gained through extensive authorship in their field. In their view, authorship hones both writing and reviewing ability, since authors are theoretically able to learn from review reports on their own submitted manuscripts:You learn by doing and if you have published let’s say 200 articles then normally you are also a good reviewer… and if you are a bad author of manuscripts then you are a bad reviewer. And your opinion leaders are the sought after reviewers because they know the field and can write well and can also analyse a manuscript from another author quite well. .Interviewees also indicated that they had a preference for seasoned authors and opinion leaders in the field over junior researchers. Here, their main concern was about fulfilling authors’ expectations of an objective peer review by recruiting an expert to review their manuscript:. Well first of all I think our reviewers … are seasoned, they have to be experts, I mean otherwise why are they reviewing? That is not fair to the authorHowever, several journal editors commented that the actual level of expertise needed to deliver a high-quality review report does not necessarily depend on publication record and seniority level. Some journal editors considered reviewing to require a different type of skill set that is not necessarily developed through writing or present by default. Other key factors drive review quality, such as ‘dedication of sufficient time’ and ‘hands-on experience with the methods used’. This is often the case with junior researchers, who go through an active learning experience of applying methods for their own research and receiving feedback on their work. Less experienced researchers’ greater motivation to peer review was also mentioned as a major driver of high-quality reviewer reports. For these reviewers, receiving the invitation to review is in itself a confirmation of growing personal reputation and recognition by the journal and by the broader scientific community. At the same time, their supposed lack of self-confidence due to their current low career status/standing within the scientific field could also drive the delivery of high-quality reviewer reports in a desire to establish and maintain their status within the scientific community:I will say that junior faculty and post doctorate fellows often write the best reviews because they tend to be insecure and tend to over-compensate and to be very careful in doing a good job. .In the same vein, a number of journal editors from non-high-ranking journals commented that senior reviewers’ increasing scientific status and ‘self-regard’ might lead to declining review report quality, most commonly demonstrated by the ‘lack of detailed comments’ or ‘two-line’ review reports that did not aim to help ‘to improve a manuscript’, but only to judge publication potential. That being said, ‘experienced’ peer reviewers were still highly sought after by all interviewees. Since they typically receive a high volume of reviewer requests, journal editors suspect that they prioritise their reviewing time in favour of highly ranked journals, a behaviour that multiple journal editors reported practising themselves when asked to perform a peer review. Although the least experienced reviewers are generally more available, most editors feel that they lack the degree of experience required to conduct a good peer review and ‘focus excessively on technical details’, instead of the ‘bigger picture’ that more experienced reviewers are able to provide.Regardless of preference for the type of peer reviewer, the vast majority of interviewees—except for those journal editors working for high-ranking journals—acknowledged that it is hard to solicit peer reviewers in general, particularly experienced ones:And one of the things that we face is that we have on one side younger investigators, willing to do the job. Sometimes they lack you know, the view and then you will have the very established scientist who in most cases do refuse to make reviews. And so we have to balance out …these two extremes. .Lastly, while peer reviewers were expected to fulfil the previous outlined criteria to some degree, interviewees did not consider the completion of a training or a course on peer reviewing as a prerequisite or necessary qualification to become a peer reviewer. All interviewees stated that they learnt to peer review manuscripts ‘by just doing it’, without having had previous training, and suggested that this was also the case for the majority of the peer reviewers in biomedical journals. Journal editors explained how one way of honing reviewing skills is through indirect feedback and comparisons with fellow reviewers’ reports  and through the final decision taken by the editor-in-chief on the fate of the manuscript.We also tried to train our reviewers in an indirect way that is when a decision was completed and when we send the decision letter to the author we usually carbon copy the decision along with the comments of all the reviewers to all the reviewers so that every reviewer can see and compare their comments, their own comments with the comments of other reviewers and that would be a form of training for them. .There was a division of opinions on the usefulness of courses that aim to teach peer-reviewing skills. While several editors were receptive to the idea, others felt that they could only be useful to less experienced researchers because they can only teach about the technicalities of the process and cannot replace experience gained over time:I learnt on the field. First, as an author and then, you know, when I become more established a scientist, as a reviewer it is a long process, and difficult process… (with) courses, you can learn the technicalities of the process but you know experience is very relevant… courses do not help established scientists, they may help young scientists but the courses won’t give them experience in actually in the field. .The majority of interviewees repeatedly expressed their gratitude towards peer reviewers, whom they most commonly framed as volunteers who perform peer review out of ‘altruistic motives’. Being occasional reviewers themselves, journal editors were well aware of the many competing duties of peer reviewers in the biomedical field—including research, teaching and/or clinical responsibilities—between which reviewing has to be squeezed in. Many interviewees emphasised that reviewing is ‘time-consuming’ and repeatedly described it as an ‘unpaid’ and largely ‘unrecognised’ role:Most of the work that is done on journals is uncompensated, and … you are already dealing with people who are very busy people in their professional lives, and so you are really asking them to do things at nights and weekends for which they get really very little recognition. And very little compensation if any. .Given that the majority of journal editors face difficulties finding peer reviewers, several considered peer reviewers to be a ‘precious resource’ that needs to be treated with ‘care’. Interviewees reported doing so through careful screening of submissions to ensure that only sufficiently good-quality manuscripts are forwarded to peer reviewers, not overburdening good peer reviewers with too many invitations, and provision of recognition and rewards. Several recognition and reward schemes were mentioned, which can be broadly divided into two categories : (1) financial rewards  and small tokens of appreciation  and (2) rewards aimed at boosting career progress through official professional development .In contrast to the more common perception of reviewers as ‘volunteers’, a small number of editors commented that peer reviewers should consider the act of peer reviewing to be a ‘responsibility’, ‘duty’ and ‘obligation to their field’ and to the scientific community in general. In their view, the entire process relies on—and only works because of—the principle of reciprocity and researchers perpetuating the development of their own research community. In their view, reciprocity should be a strong motivational drive for peer reviewers:Those of us who have a track record in publication get solicited for doing an awful lot of reviewing and you have got to fit that in around your other time and you are doing it because the process is important and you want your next paper to get properly reviewed so you want to peer review the paper that you have been sent. .A few editors were more critical of the rationale for reviewing ‘for free’, suggesting that the concept of duty in peer reviewing had originally been coined and continued to be fostered by publishers for profit-making purposes and is now dated:I mean they… they say this is your duty, you know it is your duty as a scientist to, you know, do these things … and give back, but … really the journals … certainly are profiting now the authors are paying pretty good page charges, the reviewers aren’t getting paid, and you know this could be an issue. .There was general agreement on the need for reviewers to be (1) unbiased and ethical professionals, (2) reliable professionals and (3) skilled critics.Editors outlined three aspects related to their expectation that peer reviewers should be ‘unbiased and ethical professionals’, consistent with ‘scientific ideals’. These were (1) being ‘fair’ and ‘objective’ ; (2) ‘maintain confidentiality’ ; and (3) ‘declare/avoid potential or actual conflict of interest’. Editors emphasised the importance of the latter most frequently. Some editors explained that conflict of interest could potentially contribute to increased review quality but stressed that transparency is key. They emphasised their own position as ‘decision makers’ within the peer-review process to assess and decide whether the reported conflict of interest is prohibiting a fair and objective assessment.Journal editors also unanimously agreed that peer reviewers should be ‘reliable professionals’ who should ‘respond promptly to peer-reviewer requests’. They should either accept or decline, but not ‘ignore the invitation to review’, which is the more common frustrating practice reported by interviewees from non-high-ranking journals. The common understanding among all editors was that a good peer-reviewer report takes a substantial amount of time to be written, something that peer reviewers should be aware of prior to accepting. They should be willing to devote sufficient time and attention to the evaluation of manuscripts yet deliver the reviewer report within the agreed timeline out of ‘respect’ and ‘fairness’ to authors, to the journal and the publisher.Lastly, the majority of interviewees considered helping authors to ‘improve their manuscript’ to be the primary purpose of the peer reviewer, not to suggest a rejection or to ‘filter it out’. Therefore, the need for reviewers to be ‘skilled critics’ was explicitly and implicitly voiced throughout the interviews. As part of the improvement role, it was expected that peer reviewers provide ‘constructive criticism embodying specific and addressable comments’. Peer reviewers were also expected to be ‘thorough and detailed’ and to ‘systematically address every aspect of the manuscript’. Another aspect emphasised by interviewees was the need for an ‘evidence-based review’, where peer reviewers' statements should be ‘supported by references’ that aid the author and guide the editor.Journal editors expected peer reviewers to be ‘respectful communicators’. They outlined basic principles of courtesy, such as ‘respect for the work of the authors’. Peer reviewers were expected to provide comments that ‘serve a scientific purpose’ while keeping in mind that they are criticising the manuscript, not the authors. Appropriate communication was deemed to be crucial. Based on editors’ accounts that peer reviewers should be ‘kind’ and offer ‘positive’ comments to nurture and ‘encourage’ authors to improve their work, it became evident that peer reviewing should go beyond the mere technical assessment of manuscripts and thus has also a supportive role:I often think the peer reviewers are incredibly negative, and they rarely have anything positive to say. And I tend to feel, you know if somebody was reviewing my manuscript I would want them to try to say at least one tiny little positive thing about what I have done. Journal editors were explicit in their attribution of a primarily ‘advisory role’ to peer reviewers. Our interviewees perceived and stressed their own role as the ‘ultimate decision makers’ who take decisions based on the sum of the factors outlined earlier. They have the authority to ‘override peer reviewers recommendations’ and ‘ignore their opinion’, if necessary, thereby directly or indirectly exerting influence on authors to modify their manuscripts:…the peer reviewer is really playing an advisory role to the editors…it’s only the editors that make a decision on whether to accept or not and how they want the paper to be written. .Journal editors made it clear that decision making within the editorial process is shaped and influenced by the interplay of a complex web of factors, including (1) the editors’ own expert knowledge and ability to assess different aspects of manuscripts, (2) peer-reviewer reports, (3) authors’ replies, (4) discussions between editors and editorial board members during manuscript meetings where manuscripts considered for publication are discussed, (5) the number and type of submissions received, (6) the strategic approach of the journal, (7) consideration of readership and (8) subjects related to publishers. Thus, while peer-reviewer reports play a key part, they are not the only element within the equation. While scientific quality and the value of submitted manuscripts were at the foreground, interviewees were largely open about the influence of other non-scientific factors that play into their decision-making process. Nevertheless, the peer-reviewer report was consistently regarded as a key pillar supporting publication decisions, including peer reviewers’ advisory role of providing the editor with a ‘recommendation on the fate of the manuscript’. With few exceptions, most journal editors reported that their journal submission systems ask peer reviewers to indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted (with major/minor revisions) or rejected:…the most important thing for me is actually at the end, the advice to reject the paper or have it revised. .Most journal editors were open about the substantial influence of peer-reviewer recommendations on their decision making. This was rationalised in a variety of ways, which often coexist. Journal editors partly deferred their decision to peer reviewers when they felt uncertain about their own knowledge and ability to assess the manuscript adequately, referring to the ‘trust’ they extend towards experts in the field to help in decision making. Ticking the recommendation box was also useful to justify editorial decisions to authors when the peer-reviewer report did not convey a clear direction for the manuscript, and the journal editor wants them to ‘come off the fence’. Many editors reported deferring to additional peer reviewers in case of disagreements between the initially selected peer reviewers, described as a common occurrence. Another problematic aspect of the recommendation function was the lack of a common understanding of what the individual recommendation categories actually mean. Since this is a subjective recommendation, there are inherent variations in reviewers' views.Journal editors outlined a number of tasks that coalesced around four domains: (1) organisation and approach to reviewing, (2) making general comments, (3) assessing and addressing content for each section of the manuscript, and (4) addressing ethical aspects.At the beginning of the reviewer report, journal editors prefer to see a ‘summary of the key points’ of the manuscript, which functions as a ‘quality check’ for editors ‘to be confident that they (the peer reviewers) have read it and understood it (the manuscript)’. The majority of journal editors expect reviewers to provide a balanced view by identifying both ‘strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript’. Editors also expect peer reviewers to ‘identify flaws’ and differentiate between ‘fatal and addressable flaws’ in order to understand and assess whether the manuscripts could be improved. Furthermore, a number of journal editors suggested that it is helpful to differentiate between ‘major and minor comments’. It became evident that the approach to peer review is mostly aimed at helping journal editors in their decision-making process.Journal editors specified that they expect to see some general and overarching comments that provide an ‘overall picture’ of the ‘importance and significance’ of the manuscript, as well as ‘relevance to field and  practice’. Additional comments should focus on the general aspects of ‘validity’, ‘quality’, ‘technical merit’ and ‘rigour’. The assessment of ‘novelty’ and ‘originality’ was mentioned by a number of editors; however, there was a clear divide between high-ranking journals and other journals, with editors from the latter repeatedly acknowledged that manuscripts with ‘novel findings’ tend to be preferentially submitted to high-ranking journals.The majority of journal editors expected peer reviewers to thoroughly appraise the content of each manuscript section. The ‘soundness of the methodology used’ was most frequently mentioned by peer reviewers. Generally, the level of detail expected of peer reviewers seemed to differ according to the resources that journals had, as well as the editors’ own abilities. While this was oftentimes implicit, it was apparent in the example of ‘statistics’. For example, while a number of journals reported to employ a ‘statistical review by default’ other had to rely heavily on peer reviewers for that to supplement their own limitations:…bringing expertise such as looking at the statistical analysis which is not my strong point at all. So bringing that sort of expertise to it. .Another aspect that was repeatedly mentioned was the focus on ‘spin’ in the discussion/conclusion section. Although not explicitly named as spin, editors want peer reviewers to look out for any ‘claims that are not supported by the results’, ‘overenthusiasm’ and ‘extrapolation’.Journal editors reported that their submission systems typically offers two text boxes to peer reviewers: one for comments to the authors and the other one for confidential comments to the editors. The latter should be used by peer reviewers to advise the journal editor on any aspects related to ‘ethics’ and ‘research integrity’, such as suspicion of research misconduct and detrimental and questionable research practices. The confidential comments are a means of avoiding any potential conflict arising from such criticism between authors and reviewers.This study provided an in-depth, behind-the-scenes account of 56 journal editors’ experiences with, and expectations towards, peer reviewers. We found that journal editors' understanding of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers are profoundly shaped by each journal's unique context and characteristics, including financial and human resources and journal reputation. Thus, in line with existing literature, we found that editorial decision making and expectations towards peer reviewers are unavoidably shaped by social externalities that at times may have little to do with the scientific content of the manuscript.Furthermore, although we found considerable agreement among editors concerning technical tasks of manuscript reviewing, there was an apparent difference in journal editors’ expectations of the level of depth and detail they would like to see in a reviewer report. Our study sample showcases the status quo of the journal editors’ market, where there are a few full-time journal editors. The remainder work on a part-time basis, usually for a symbolic or stipend-like payment, and combine their editorial responsibilities with research, education and/or clinical duties. Therefore, it might be the case that their own limited time might lead to expectations of greater detail from reviewers. Journal resource availability might also have an impact on their expectations, such as requests for comments related to statistical analysis in the case of journals with fewer resources. Given these existing contextual journal differences and hence peer-review report requirements, better ways of communicating editorial expectations to peer reviewers  are needed. Currently, these expectations are communicated through publishers and journal-specific guidelines. However, various studies in this area suggest that these are often not readily available, or are generic and non-specificAnother key finding was interviewed journal editors’ apparent lack of appreciation of the importance of formal peer-reviewer training. The majority embraced a somewhat simplistic and ‘linear’ view that ‘good’ authors  make ‘good’ peer reviewers. However, there is no evidence to support this perspective; evidence linking authorship experience and academic qualifications to high-quality reviews is very limited. The only substantial study in this field was unable to predict reviewer performance from easily identifiable types of experience or qualifications. The study authors also found that, contrary to the beliefs prevalent among our interviewees, factors such as academic rank and seniority do not predict performance.et al that systematically reviewed tools used by journal editors to assess the quality of peer-review reports, the authors identified nine quality domains pertaining to peer-reviewer skills, of which five  arguably overlap with the skillset of authors. The remainder are directly concerned with skills related to structure and delivery of the peer-review report,Given this situation, we believe that the skillset required to be a good author is not necessarily the same as that required to be a good peer reviewer. In a recent study (2019) by Superchi Notwithstanding various surveys on the educational needs of young clinicians and researchers across different biomedical fields having revealed a strong interest in attaining better reviewing skills,Given this lack of evidence, we think it would be helpful to conduct research on the actual content of peer reviewers’ reports to help establish educational needs for peer reviewing.According to the majority of our interviewees, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find experienced authors to review manuscripts. On the other hand, junior researchers are often more willing to accept invitations, including those from lower-ranking journals. This is in line with existing evidenceOur recruitment approach gave rise to a key limitation of this study. Based on our collective experience as researchers and a former staff member of a biomedical journal (DH), who struggled with response rates involving studies with editorial staff, we anticipated that it would be challenging to recruit journal editors to participate in our research. The majority of journal editors of biomedical journals are part-timers who concurrently work as practitioners, researchers and educators and may have other additional roles. In the light of this situation, our employment of purposive maximum variation sampling resulted in predominant contact with editors-in-chief. While one of the strengths of this study is that research participants were diverse in terms of demographic characteristics and characteristics related to their journal , two-thiThis study provides context for, and details about, the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals and helps to explain attitudes and opinions expressed in existing surveys of editors, reviewers and authors on the peer-review process. Our research provides a greater understanding of the current status quo of the review process and why particular issues arise around roles and tasks of peer reviewers, and offers insight into how these issues can be addressed.Further research is needed on actual performance of peer reviewers looking into the content of peer-reviewer reports on a large scale to inform meaningful training interventions and to improve existing journal policies and guidelines.


Plant Direct, a new journal from Wiley and the societies behind Plant Physiology, The Plant Journal, and The Plant Cell. While there is a crowded landscape of journals to choose from, we believe that Plant Direct fills an unserved role for the plant community. We seek to be the sound science plant journal for the community of ASPB members, SEB members, and the authors who publish in our society journals. By “sound science,” we mean that instead of trying to determine the novelty or impact of a paper, we will judge manuscripts based on whether the experiments and analysis are performed to an acceptable technical standard and described in adequate detail in standard English, how well the conclusions are supported by the data, and whether the manuscript and contents meet all ethical and research integrity standards .As the Editor‐in‐Chief, I am excited to introduce Plant Direct is a society journal, and we think the service to community part of our mission statement is incredibly important. Publishing has changed dramatically over the past two decades, and many of the services that journals have provided are no longer essential. The single most important service that journals provide now is managing the peer review process. But the effort of peer review at a sound science journal is made entirely by the community, active scientists are both the editors and reviewers (helped out by the great management staff at Wiley). When the community is doing the work, the community should reap the benefits. Our societies support our community, and the two sponsoring societies, ASPB and SEB, will be able to use the revenues from this journal to support their important work in education, outreach, networking, and the advancement of plant science.Plant Direct that will improve the speed, efficiency, and openness of the publication process: Strong promotion of preprint posting at submission.Plant Physiology, The Plant Cell, and The Plant Journal—that is, manuscripts are easily transferred for consideration along with any accompanying reviewer reports.Referred reviews from Publication of anonymous reviewer reports upon acceptance.Starting a new journal also allowed us to look at the way we run our journals with a fresh eye. The past 20 years have seen a wide variety of innovations in scientific publishing, including journals moving online and the proliferation of open‐access journals. Nonetheless, for many researchers the publishing process continues to be slow, frustrating, and wasteful of authors’ and reviewers’ time. Manuscripts pass through multiple stages of review and revision, sometimes spanning multiple journals, each using new reviewers. Although this process improves many papers, it also greatly delays when the science becomes available to the scientific community. There are three features of Plant Direct.These features will speed scientific communication in two ways. The preprint is visible to the scientific community immediately, although readers must judge for themselves the work's technical merit. This visibility has major benefits for authors, especially junior scientists applying for fellowships, grants, and jobs, by showing their great science to the world. It also benefits readers who are not in the author's close‐knit network and thus may not be able to put the author's hard work to use to move their field forward until it is published as a peer‐reviewed article. We think that preprints are such a large benefit to the community that we will give you a discount on your publication charges if your manuscript is posted on a preprint server at the time of submission to Plant Direct speed the publication process by reducing or eliminating steps that contribute to delays. Allowing transfer of manuscripts from referring journals, or from the bioRxiv preprint server, will save authors the hassle of entering manuscript metadata multiple times. Referred reviews from participating journals allow the editor to benefit from previous reviews and may remove altogether the need to send the manuscript out for review, thereby reducing reviewer workload. The publication of reviewer comments will make the process more open and help to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.The other features of We are also going to be working with our author, reviewer, and editor community to identify and implement new ways to reduce the bottlenecks in the publication process. We will host a series of discussions in spring/summer 2017, both online (at Plantae.org) and at scientific meetings, to brainstorm new ideas and gauge the support for these ideas and ideas already in circulation. Please let us know your thoughts on this idea as well as how we can make the publishing process better. We are also interested in ideas on how to incorporate mentorship and training of postdoctorals and graduate students into the publishing process.Let me conclude by asking you, the plant community, to join us as we launch this community journal. Please send us your manuscripts, review our manuscripts, and tell us how we can make the journal and the community better. We are excited to get this started and hope that you will be too.


This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR . Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments. Institutional repositories (IRs) have been integrated into the services that medical libraries provide to their user communities for more than a decade. An IR is an online digital archive that organizes, preserves, and provides access to the educational, scholarly, and research output of an institution. IRs serve as tools to promote open access and to collect, showcase, and disseminate scholarly content produced by an institution, including journal articles, posters and presentations, data sets, and student works such as theses and dissertations. According to OpenDOAR, an authoritative directory of open access repositories, as of April 2019, there were more than 4,100 open access repositories around the world, and 378 of these repositories had health and medicine content  requires researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research articles by depositing them in an open access repository.” The majority of institutions (57%) were not considering a policy or mandate at that time, 26% had a policy or mandate that was live across the institution, and 17% were considering such a policy or mandate.Respondents with open access policies were asked how the policy impacted the operation or workflow of their IRs. As seen in the following excerpts from comments, some have found the policy to be essential and beneficial, while others have found that the policy has not had a big impact.Essential to the streamlined workflow of the IR, and allows absolute paper trail of the required permissions and licenses.The implementation of the [open access] OA policy drastically increased the amount of unique digital objects in the IR.It is not actively enforced and has not led to an uptick in faculty works being submitted to our IR.It didn’t really affect things except maybe we put less in because we don’t want to duplicate what is in PMC.Respondents were asked a series of questions about the current platforms for their IRs, recent enhancements, and future plans in this area. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons were the two most popular IR platforms , consistRespondents were asked about changes to the IR in a number of specific areas and for two time periods: the past twelve months and the next twelve to twenty-four months . Since dFor 2018–2019, the planned changes that were reported most frequently were implementing a discovery layer (34%) and ORCID integration (31%). Less than a quarter of respondents (20%) were considering changing platforms in this time frame. In their comments, respondents provided various reasons for making these changes, including “To keep it functional and viable,” “offer more functionality,” “to better serve our users,” “enhance interoperability,” and “tie in with our faculty productivity system.”When asked if they anticipated migrating from their current IR platforms in the foreseeable future, most respondents (54%) indicated that they did not plan to migrate to a different platform. Of the other respondents, 6% planned to migrate to a different IR platform within a year, 23% planned to migrate within the next 2–5 years, and 17% were not sure. Thus, it appears that for now, most medical libraries were unlikely to change platforms, although many remained open to considering a migration.The ten respondents with migrations plans were asked: “to which system will your institution migrate?” Five respondents reported moving away from DSpace , with moFinally, respondents were asked to share any other information about their IRs, such as innovative uses, initiatives, concerns, and unique or significant features or collections. In analyzing the responses to this question, as well as comments to earlier questions, we identified five themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations. Respondents listed concerns that might have been institution-specific but resonated with similarly expressed concerns from other institutions.There are other efforts by other entities on campus to digitize items into a repository. We need to be aware of those efforts so as not to be redundant.Also exploring integrations with local faculty profiles system...Our use of [platform/brand name redacted] which serves as a front-end for our faculty’s research output. Not what I consider an IR however we linked to ORCID and Altmetrics.We need to develop a good reporting feature and hope to do that in the near future. As of now, we don’t have an easy way of retrieving aggregate count of views/downloads for all items in College of Medicine collections.We are very concerned about the Elsevier acquisition of bepress, but it would be difficult for us to move off the platform given the range of functionality that bepress offers. However, we will be exploring alternatives in 2018. In considering a possible future migration, we have been reviewing our metadata for consistency.We are in the process of looking into Digital Commons as a replacement for the Access Database. We would like something that allows other users to add publications instead of just the librarians. We would also like more reporting options, and the ability to add the full text from the libraries’ subscriptions.Overall, the School of Medicine is responsible for (roughly) 70% of the total journal articles in the IR and is a major contributor to the university’s OA policy. There are several unique School of Medicine collections within our institutional IR.[sic] established ETD collection…and are investigating a new nursing presence in the IR for 2018.Many of our collections are comprised of digitized content from the archives, but we also have and [sic] open access policy under review for theses and dissertations. Assuming it passes, our students’ ETDs will be freely available in the IR.Our IR is both a publishing platform for journals and book series, as well as for academic units to host working papers and other types of documents, and for individuals to deposit scholarly “postprints”, or previously published works as we call them...There is a Univerity-wide Faculty participation largely depends on open access policy and cultural change.Many of the top journal titles that our faculty and researchers publish in do not allow for IR deposit (we use the SHERPA/RoMEO database as part of our article deposit workflow). That, combined with the lack of an IR deposit mandate at the institutional level, does limit participation in our IR.Funding to support infrastructure and human resources is always lacking which could dampen the impact of the IR.We are not considering getting an IR due solely to financial considerations.Two collections that are managed by health sciences liaisons total 850 items...I would love to be able to provide additional numbers but until I get my vacant position hired, I am not able to spend the time analyzing the spreadsheet metadata generated by the repository reports to figure out what material is health sciences-related and what isn’t.The IR is a small part of my job, perhaps 5%.Cataloging librarian is doing the IR work for us.IR manager splits time between IR, [interlibrary loan] ILL, data catalog and other projects. Metadata librarians too allocate their time to work on IR. Other techs and library interns are a major source for submission and digitization.Main library hosts IR, they have one dedicated staff person with 2 student workers who do IR work.The results of this study provide valuable information about the availability of, characteristics of, and future plans for IRs in medical schools and academic health centers. This study addresses a gap in the professional literature by gathering granular and up-to-date information from AAHSL member libraries about their IRs, allowing us to look at trends and acquire a generalized view beyond individual cases and pilot studies –4, websiOur finding that 70% of the 50 responding AAHSL member libraries indicated that they currently used or were implementing an IR aligned with results of the most recent official AAHSL survey in 2017, which found that 68% of member libraries were planning to continue offering or add IR services . InstituIn this study, we looked for patterns through the prism of health sciences IRs. Over half (60%) of respondents participated in a shared IR with other libraries at their institutions. About a quarter (26%) of respondents were from an institution that adopted an open access mandate or policy, although there was not a clear consensus on the impact of such policies on an IR. The survey results also demonstrated that resources archived in medical IRs were diverse, from prominent content such as dissertations, theses, and journal articles to less common content such as lab notebooks. Thus, IRs were providing a medium and an opportunity for medical schools and academic health centers to collect, curate, and archive grey literature. Respondents were focusing their efforts on unique repository features and collections that added value or showcased health sciences content. Health sciences institutions might be similar to participants of the 2017 Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) Executive Roundtable on “Rethinking Institutional Repository Strategies,” who saw IRs as a “spectrum of services” that made up stewardship strategy .IRs in academic medical libraries appeared to have much in commons with IRs in other academic environments, when compared to the findings of Luther’s recent study of mostly academic institutions in North America . We founMedical librarians expressed concerns about ensuring that their IR initiatives harmonized with institutional infrastructure and reporting initiatives, and were not redundant. Recruiting community content for their IRs appeared to be problematic for many libraries. Sustaining financial and operational support over time was also a challenge. Most respondents had an IR manager, but many expressed concerns about insufficient staffing levels for their IRs. These concerns about the role and sustainability of IRs aligned with Luther’s data and analysis of the scholarly communication ecosystem and the evolving role of libraries and repositories .Institutions are watching and responding to new developments in the industry as evidenced in the list of reported enhancements and plans to migrate to a different or next generation IR. The data revealed some interesting views and plans on platform migration. According to the 2017 CNI Executive Roundtable, there were 3 strategies that institutions were taking to move their repositories to the next stage: consolidate them into fewer platforms, migrate to a platform new to the institution, and implement a cross-platform discovery tool . We founBecause this study surveyed 153 US and Canadian libraries that were AAHSL members in December 2017, this was a small sample compared to the IR community at large and globally. Although we received a healthy response rate for the targeted audience, our results may not necessarily be generalizable to all medical libraries.An area for further work is to target a much larger and more diverse survey population, such as the Medical Library Association (MLA), which includes both individual and institutional members of medical and other academic health schools, hospitals, corporations, and research centers. This could generate a larger sample size and would provide more diverse perspectives regarding the status of medical IRs. Also, more granularity and perspective could be achieved if the methodology included other research modalities such as interviews.Worldwide, the number of IRs is growing, and this same upward trend can be noted for IRs in academic health sciences centers. With the emergence of the second-generation IR movement led by the Coalition of Open Access Repositories (COAR), many medical and academic health institutions continue to develop their IRs . They arhttps://dx.doi.org/10.13028/4t76-4325.The de-identified dataset and supporting files are available in the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s IR, eScholarship@UMMS, at Appendix AClick here for additional data file.Appendix BClick here for additional data file.Daniel G. Kipnis, MSI, kipnisd@rowan.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-5106, Life Sciences Librarian, Reference and Information Services, Campbell Library, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJLisa A. Palmer, MSLS, AHIP, lisa.palmer@umassmed.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4116-1279, Institutional Repository Librarian, Lamar Soutter Library, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MARamune K. Kubilius, MALS, AHIP, r-kubilius@northwestern.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7881-9396, Collection Development/Special Projects Librarian, Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL


Immediately after I was appointed as the Editor-in-Chief in the fall of 2016, we had to face with a change in the publishing house. We successfully overcame this difficult process through the great efforts of our editorial team and Galenos publishing house. In 2017, we realized our goal of having a dynamic website that we dreamed of (Balkan Medical Journal is one of the first journals to use the online submission system in Turkey. In 2006, we started using an online submission system for the first time (Our performance with ScholarOne for the past 5.5 years is shown in However, in the second half of the year 2018, as a result of depreciation of Turkish lira, we had to reduce the costs of the journal. Being the editorial board, we started looking for an online submission system of comparable quality at a lower cost. After a long-term search by the editorial team and the publisher, we decided that the Manuscript Manager peer review system would meet all our needs. With this decision, starting with the last week of November 2018, we began using the new system. In this transition period, there may be some shortcomings and errors. Therefore, we hope that the authors and the reviewers will be tolerant.The Manuscript Manager peer review system is a product of Akron ApS, based in Copenhagen, Denmark. They have more than 15 years of experience in working with peer review software for academic organizations. Some of the benefits of the new system include a user-friendly platform, no requirement of technical support or installation costs, and easy customization for your journal.All processes related to the new article submission and review process should be made through the new online submission system available at https://www.manuscriptmanager.net/sLib/v4/login. php?paramScreen=FJ9enn8VfEwHq0NyAL1P9XnBjILxf94k4KO4DTwavsc=.For detailed instructions on using Manuscript Manager, please visit the website at https://manuscriptmanager.com/site/. We hope that our authors, reviewers, and editors will adapt quickly to this new system.


This symposium, organized by the Gerontological Society of America’s (GSA) Publications Committee, will provide information on the publication process from the perspective of several editors of GSA’s scientific journals that publish diverse types of gerontological research, basic to applied across multiple disciplines. This session is comprised of three parts including: 1) Podium presentations from editors-in-chief from GSA’s The Gerontologist, Innovation in Aging , and Journal of Gerontology-Series B, Social Sciences. Editors will describe how to prepare your manuscript for submission, choose the right journal, and revise the manuscript for resubmission; 2) A presentation about how to assess and maximize the impact of published work given by a representative from Oxford University Press (OUP); and 3) Round table discussions with editors from the Journals of Gerontology-Series A  and B , The Gerontologist, and Innovation in Aging and OUP representatives. Editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published. Current and future published authors will also gain information about how to leverage already published work.


Dear colleagues and friends,TH Open, the open access companion journal toThrombosis and Haemostasis, is growing well, publishing more than 65 peer-reviewed manuscripts in both clinical studies and basic science since its launch in 2017.Happy New Year 2019! We are pleased to share that2production in platelets, leading to inhibition of platelet aggregation.The length and breadth of articles merit some discussion, and we are pleased to highlight a small selection of the most popular articles. Amongst the clinical studies published in the journal, two papers from the RIETE Registry dealing with cancer-associated thrombosis stand out, which have been widely cited.TH Openhomepage:www.thieme.com/THOwhere you can read these and all other articles for free, find all info about the journal, and access the submission site.Please check out theThrombosis and Haemostasis. Authors benefit from rigorous peer-review, rapid online publication, as well as its unique “Pay What You Want” policy which allows authors to decide how much worth they place into the publication process and give a chance to those who are deterred by high publishing prices to submit Open Access.Manuscripts come in both as direct submissions as well as transfers fromTH Openis currently under application for indexing in PubMed Central. A few articles are already online on PMC.www.thieme-connect.com, and we will be actively promoting and highlighting articles from the journal also on Facebook.As a new journal,TH Openin the past year: Marie Lordkipanidze, Alma Zernecke, Marco Proietti, Sandip Kanse, and Alfonso Tafur.A warm “Thank you” goes out to all those who served as reviewers for the journal as well as the dedicated Editorial Board servingThrombosis and Haemostasis), Gregory Y. H. Lip and Christian Weber, who oversaw our launchWe also thank our Editorial “God-fathers” (the Editors-in-Chief ofWith best regards and warm wishes for a healthy and successful year.


Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing. Increased access to the Internet has allowed for open access publishing to flourish. Traditional modes of scholarly publication involve the transfer of copyright from authors to publishers, with journal fees collected to provide access to articles. Traditional publishing, whether due to cost or perceived prejudicial peer review, is not embraced by all ,2. In coSo called “predatory” journals take advantage of the open access publication model to prey on unsuspecting authors . Such joDefining what is and is not a predatory journal has been a point of contention among researchers -8. BeallWhat remains unknown amid this controversy is the perspective of both editors who manage predatory journals and those choosing to publish in them. While the lay press and literature has increasingly drawn attention to this issue, these journals continue to exist ,5,13. NoBeall’s list  was acceA total of 350 publishers were randomly selected from this list, using a random-number generator. Eight reviewers  evaluated publishers using the following criteria. First, we confirmed an active link to the publisher website. Second, we reviewed the titles of journals within the portfolio of a publisher’s work to assess if any were biomedical journals in scope. Specifically, we applied the MEDLINE criteria: “[Journals] predominantly devoted to reporting original investigations in the biomedical and health sciences, including research in the basic sciences; clinical trials of therapeutic agents; effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or studies relating to the behavioral, epidemiological, or educational aspects of medicine” . JournalSurveys for both authors and editors were created during a round-table discussion among study authors. The surveys underwent iterative testing for clarity, content, and length. Next, we invited editors and authors to participate via email. Surveys were administered using REDCap, with one reminder sent to nonresponders. We simultaneously performed a nested randomized controlled trial on incentives to encourage survey response, which is published separately . InviteePrefer not to answer were not considered incomplete responses.Surveys assessed authors’ basic demographics, publication history, their recollection of the editorial process for the article in question, and their knowledge regarding predatory journals see . EditorsSummary statistics were used to describe the cohort. Means and standard deviations as well medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used for continuous variables. Frequency tables were used for categorical variables. The chi-square statistic was used to compare frequencies between groups. Developed-nation status was based on the World Bank listing for high-income countries derived from gross national income higher than US $12,056 per capita . StatistConsent for publication was granted by participants when they responded to the survey in accordance with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Ethical clearance was granted by the IRB of the University of California, San Francisco, CA .P<.01). Several respondents provided incomplete responses (n=40). Complete responses were collated from 206 authors and 43 editors, out of a potential 1165 and 1062, respectively, for a final response rate of 11.18% (249/2227).Journals meeting selection criteria came from 181 distinct publishers. There was a substantial range in the number of journals per publisher represented in our cohort. A total of 58.0% of publishers (105/181) were singular entities, having only a single journal in their portfolio. However, several larger publishers were also included; indeed, 52.00% of 1146/2204) journals came from just 3 out of 181 publishing companies (1.7%). Of the articles selected, 59.68% (811/1359) were published in 2018, 17.73% (241/1359) were published in 2017, and none were published before 2014. Authors and editors represented a global academic community see . Of all 4 journalResponding authors had a median age of 43 years (IQR 33-54), with 47.0% (95/202) reporting that they had been in practice for over 15 years see . A totalP=.04), with 27.2% (56/206) of total articles reportedly cited. Authors’ perceptions of the journals’ prestige was not impacted by whether their paper was cited. Google Scholar searching confirmed that only 16% (9/56) of those articles purported to be cited had a recorded citation. A total of 40.8% of authors (84/206) felt this particular publication was neutral in terms of career advancement and 14.1% (29/206) had published in the same journal prior to this particular publication. Most common reasons for selecting this particular journal for publication were open access , solicitation , and affordability .A total of 12.1% of authors (25/206) felt publication in their chosen journal was both prestigious and had a positive impact on their career. In addition, 19.6% of authors (39/199) noted a positive career impact if they reported their paper was cited versus 10.6% (21/199) that reported a positive impact when their paper was not cited (P<.01). These authors reporting higher expenses were not necessarily more likely from high-income countries . Authors came from 54 countries, spanning all continents except Antarctica; 23.3% (48/206) were from India and 13.6% (28/206) were from the United States.Authors that paid fees in the top quartile (>US $519) for publication had no difference in perception of journal prestige, impact on career, shorter publication times, or fewer revision requests than authors paying lower fees see . They weEditors’ median age was 41 years (IQR 33-53) see . Among sA total of 40% of editors (17/43) who responded were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. These editors were excluded from subsequent analysis. Among remaining editors, 96% (25/26) felt their journal was not a predatory journal and 50% (13/26) were already aware their journal was listed on Beall’s list. A total of 92% (24/26) of editors reported that their journal requires peer review. Editors reported that the mean cost to publish in their journals was US $634 (IQR 75-1360). Editors’ estimated, on average, that 50% of manuscripts required revisions and that 35% were rejected. A total of 54% (14/26) of editors reported that 31-45 days elapsed between submission and acceptance.P<.001) (see P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed that their publication was published in a journal that could be defined as predatory, once given the definition. Given knowledge that a journal was definitely predatory, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.Whereas 77% of all surveyed editors (33/43) were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% (68/206) of authors were somewhat familiar with them (001) see . SimilarNarrative comments were also collected via the survey. These provided surprising and conflicting insight into the attitudes and opinions of both authors and editors. Additionally, many survey respondents felt passionate enough about this topic to contact the research staff via email to share additional long-form opinions. Selected comments are presented in an anonymized fashion in We found editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, but the vast majority of authors (67%) were not. Per authors and editors, in limited cases, predatory journals seemingly provide some editorial support via revisions, rejections, and circulation that was enough to drive citations. Predatory journal authorship is a global phenomenon in our study, with higher penetrance in India and the United States. Alarmingly, 39% of editors reported not even being aware of being a journal editor for the journal in question. Several editors sent us comments stating they had previously asked that their name and contact information be removed from the journal websites, given no purposeful affiliation. After alerting authors that their recent publication was in a potentially predatory journal, 88% would avoid the same journal, demonstrating that via dissemination of knowledge regarding predatory practices, predatory publishing may decrease.On the surface, these predatory journals are providing at least some service to authors. In our cohort, authors frequently recalled a peer review and a need to submit revisions. Editors similarly stated that a peer review was performed and approximately 35% of articles were rejected. A potential marker of journal prestige and circulation is ultimately citation, reported by 27% of surveyed authors . Of noteWe found that 40% of authors were from countries designated by the World Bank as high income; prior work suggests that authors who published in predatory journals were primarily from developing nations . A predoPrior work proposed that young naïve authors are the target of predatory journals, but 47% of responding authors in this study have been in practice for more than 15 years . By way A high proportion of responding authors in our cohort reported that publication is an important facet of academic advancement. There is a growing concern that the motivation to publish may supersede desires for research quality . Both auThink. Check. Submit. [Potential solutions to predatory publishing include demanding promotion committees judge faculty on the quality of publications in lieu of sheer number . Authors Submit. , an inte Submit. . Researc Submit. . AccountSome authors shared already-published concerns regarding blacklists, such as Beall’s stifling of innovation in open access publishing, which is why we cross-referenced our findings with well-publicized white lists to generate a cohort of authors and editors -8. PriorA major limitation to this study is our poor response rates from both authors and editors, but particularly editors. Given that 39% of responding editors were not even aware that they were editors at the journal in question, it is not surprising that editors-at-large may have faced confusion with our survey invitation. Moreover, unlike author email addresses, the editorial email addresses often took a generic form, such as “editor@journalname.org,” and may have encountered staff that did not forward the survey to the intended recipient. Our data comes from an international cohort, but we randomized the selection of publishers and not the countries of publishers. As such, some countries only contributed via a single survey response and the responses should not be seen as representative of all authors of that region. All authors published their papers in English journals. Nonetheless, English may not be a first language for respondents, limiting responsiveness or leading to response error. Due to monetary and time constraints, we did not perform survey adaptation or cross-cultural validation for global participants ,32. SurvPredatory journal authorship is a global phenomenon not unique to early-career researchers. The majority of studied authors were not familiar with predatory publishing practices, despite being published in a suspected predatory journal. Alarmingly, 39% of editors reported that they were not even aware of being an editor for the journal in question, clearly confirming the unethical practices of such journals. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.


UJMS informs our readers about the performance of our journal in terms of metrics. It is a much-debated phenomenon  scores. This is noteworthy, since most of the prestigious journals have a five-fold lower CiteScore value when compared with their IF figures   . There a 0.0001) . Now, ha 0.0001) . We encoThe issues dwelt upon above are trivial when considering the big and most controversial subject in scholarly publishing these days—cOAlition S, or more frequently presented as ‘plan S’. When visiting their website, it says that plan S is ‘Making full and immediate open access a reality’ . The plaUpsala Journal of Medical Sciences has applied gold Open Access for the last 10 years, i.e. all published articles have been fully accessible immediately upon release without a publication paywall. It is most likely that this feature of our journal has enhanced our performance substantially. When investigating the influence of the open access publishing format on the IF values of open access and closed access journals over a 5-year period, we found no obvious effect on the journals chosen for the review  and one in the open access  display quite obvious improvements. So, in essence we have nothing to fear. Open access publishing will most probably slowly increase, and fees will have to be paid in some way for the service publishers provide. APCs will become a more common phenomenon, and the level will depend on the quality and reputation characterising the journal. At present the board of our society has no plans for a change of our no-APC policy. Of course, such an offer attracts many contributions from research environments with meagre economic resources. It also constitutes a substantial work load for the editorial board. There is only room for some 40–50 published papers a year, and, with submission figures close to 300, there is a fairly high rejection rate. From the editors’ point of view, we have to attract more papers good enough for acceptance. And we take this opportunity to repeat that we offer a fast track for high-quality papers.What impact could these changes have for our journal? Quite likely, forcing researchers funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils to publish under open access policies would benefit our journal. e review . In ordee review  and 2. ILet us finish this annual report with an apology. Perhaps some of you have noticed that the journal launched a new submission portal in May 2019. As editors of scholarly journals you would not notice this if it wasn’t for the sudden increase in your inbox of e-mails from prospective authors complaining about difficulties in crossing a veritable wall created by this new electronic manuscript central. It also quite soon became clear that resubmitting a revised manuscript involved many problems. The reasons for these shortcomings have not been resolved in detail as yet. Still, almost half a year later, there are complaints of the same nature, and the problems mainly involve the log-in process. We are struggling to return to the use of the old portal. Meanwhile, our advice is to either report problems to the technical support of Taylor & Francis or, alternatively, to contact the editor of the journal. It is impossible to assess how many authors have given up and sent their papers to other journals. Luckily, some manuscripts have nevertheless arrived at the editorial office, and submission figures are close to those of last year. Therefore, besides begging for your patience, we would like to hear from you if, or when, you face problems with your submissions. Press stop as of December 2, 2019; The old submission portal has now been reinstalled and, not surprisingly, the inconveniencies with the new version disappeared.