scholarly journals Editorial

Author(s):  
Biju Hameed ◽  
Charles Newton

The Journal of the International Child Neurology Association (JICNA), was officially launched in February 2015 although the proceedings of the 13th International Child Neurology Congress in 2014 was, published under the platform in the previous year. The JICNA editorial team was announced, and constituted of members of the International Child Neurology Association (ICNA) executive board with representation from all geographical regions and across all major child neurology disciplines. The launch of JICNA represented a major milestone in the history of the association, founded in 1973 with the goal of promoting education and research in child neurology worldwide. Open access publishing in child neurology hardly existed before, and JICNA thus became the first fully open access multidisciplinary peer reviewed ejournal in child neurology. JICNA has steadily progressed over its initial years and now in its 7th year, is poised to establish itself as a major open access platform for disseminating scientific research in child neurology. Closely integrated with its parent organization the ICNA and ICNApedia, the association’s flagship knowledge environment platform, JICNA editorial policy is aimed at both facilitating access to and disseminating research, particularly from resource poor settings. As part of this remit, JICNA adopts the association's consensus position on scientific issues treated within its published articles. The special articles published from the ICNA Advocacy Committee on genetic testing for rare disorders [1] and other articles in the pipeline on “vaccination against measles” and “stem cell therapy in neurological disorders” reflect the journal’s ethos. The ongoing global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov2) and its disease (COVID-19) has highlighted more than ever the importance and need for open science. The dissemination of scientific research following the outbreak has no doubt brought to attention the significant changes that have occured in the field of scientific publishing, with how research is communicated and how researchers engage, share and contribute. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a spate of preprint articles, which, while potentially life-saving, also risk dissemination of poor-quality work. While we are not against such author-led rapid publication workflows, we would advise caution against its potential risks. The pandemic again has shown that timely access of researchers to information and knowledge is key to fighting global diseases and problems that threaten humanity. It remains a sad truth that researchers across the world remain cut off from a vast body of information and knowledge that ought to have been readily accessible by them. The scientific community has long been aware of the hindrance of traditional publishing models to the dissemination of scientific research. Research can only flourish through collaboration, and it is imperative that research is made more visible by breaking cost, language and geographic barriers. Although governments, major universities and funders, such as Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, have long acknowledged and taken steps to promote this, urging their academics to consider open access venues for publishing their work, there still remains much progress to be made. The four main factors considered by authors in deciding their choice of journal are visibility, cost, prestige and speed. “Brand-name” journals are still favoured by authors to promote their academic career prospects. While an open-access publishing model in itself is not a hindrance to a journal’s success, it is acknowledged that JICNA should gain an impact factor and improve its visibility further. JICNA has now been consistently publishing, following a stringent peer review, original articles, trial reports, case studies and timely reviews, since its inception in 2015. JICNA is currently indexed in Google Scholar, CrossRef and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and will, this year, be making a submission to PubMed Central® & MEDLINE®. The journal also subscribes to robust archiving systems including CLOCKSS & PORTICO. In the current environment, where the open access publishing model is at danger of being exploited by predatory publishers with lax editorial policies and peer-reviews risk perpetuating bad research, a journal like JICNA certainly assumes greater significance. The ICNA is committed to maintaining JICNA free of cost to its readers, with an expedited publication workflow while ensuring strict peer-review standards. The JICNA editorial board is extremely thankful to all the peer reviewers and members of the editorial board, without whose support this would not have been possible. JICNA follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines and is committed to upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. The journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, permitting any user to “distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work,” provided that they credit the original authors in all cases, ensuring the copyright remaining with the main author. We would like to once again thank all authors, peer-reviewers and the editorial board for their valuable contributions to the success of the journal. We are looking to further expand our panel of reviewers and editorial board from across the various subspecialties in child neurology.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Ivana Hebrang Grgić

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.


Author(s):  
Markus Wust

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Perniola ◽  
Pier Paolo Roggero ◽  
Michael D. Casler ◽  
Davide Cammarano ◽  
Michele Rinaldi

The Italian Society of Agronomy (SIA) has changed the Editor in Chief and the Editorial board of the Italian Journal of Agronomy (IJA). The new Editorial board is being integrated with new expertise and includes three Associate editors: Michael D. Casler from USDA-ARS, USA, Davide Cammarano from Purdue University, USA and Michele Rinaldi from Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Italy, the former co-editor. The Editorial board is redeveloping the Journal with a more pro-active publishing policy, that is consistent to the changing editorial demand of agronomy scientists worldwide. The international scientific publishing industry is facing a sharp transition, pulled by the increasing demand of rapid publication in the publish-or-perish or highly-cited paradigm and pushed towards full open access publishing by research funders and end-users. Minimizing the time between manuscript submission and paper publication is threatening the quality of the peer-review process, which is constrained by time pressure on highly qualified scientists, who end up being overloaded with reviews and editorial duties. The open access scientific journal industry is struggling between increasing the impact factor/cite score of the journals and maximizing the number of published articles, which is directly proportional to the publisher’s business. This is generating an increasing number of open access scientific publications worldwide: +75% between 2008-10 and 2015-17 in the ‘Agronomy and crop science’ subject category (Source: Scopus) while the non-open access publications in the same domain and time span increased by only +27%. This situation and the evolution of long term open-theme research funding schemes into short-term projectified finalized research funding programs are deeply influencing the topics of research in Agronomy. Long term agronomic facilities and field scale research are becoming rare and are often being replaced by short-term easily-published studies. However, international scientific exchanges are facilitating the development of permanent regional and global networks of researchers (e.g. AgMip, Global Research Alliance) that are developing unprecedented long-term research efforts on global issues around agronomy, involving hundreds of post-docs and young researchers worldwide. In this developing context, the Italian Journal of Agronomy, own by the Italian Society of Agronomy, a non-profit scientific organization, is developing a new editorial policy to contribute to the progress of agronomic science through an open-access, low-cost and authoritative scientific literature space, with particular attention to young scientists. There are number of reasons why an agronomy scientist should publish an article in the Italian Journal of Agronomy, including: i) to get a rapid and careful peer review assessment of the submissions by an authoritative editorial board with specific expertise in Agronomy and receive careful support on how to address major revisions when required; ii) to ensure maximum visibility for published articles through the open access system; iii) to contribute to the agronomic scientific literature through an open access Scopus/WOS scientific Journal owned by a non-profit scientific society at a fair price; iv) to compete for the SIA grants and prizes for best articles or best reviewers of the year. The new editorial policy of IJA includes a more pro-active publishing strategy aiming at widening the arena of international scientists contributing to the journal’s scope, including invited papers and special conditions for the publication of special issues on cutting-edge agronomy topics, promotion of the journal during scientific conferences and events, rewarding of the best articles and peer-reviewers contributing to the journal’s development. IJA is solely focused on the free diffusion of agroecosystem science, not on any other business: we trust that authors and readers will appreciate that IJA’s editorial board members work toward this mission without compensation and that the article fee is necessary only to cover the publisher’s net costs. We are very grateful to the past and new Editorial board and all peer reviewers for their invaluable contribution to the development of our Journal. Michele Perniola, President of the Italian Society of Agronomy Pier Paolo Roggero, Editor in ChiefMichael D. Casler, Associate EditorDavide Cammarano, Associate EditorMichele Rinaldi, Associate Editor


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. FNL35
Author(s):  
Kate Lovesey

To all our readers, we are delighted to welcome you to the fifteenth volume of Future Neurology. We are also excited to welcome you to the second Open Access issue of the journal. Since the launch of this title, we have continued to publish high-quality scientific research and commentary, and the open access model will allow us to share our great content with an even bigger audience. 2019 was another exciting year for Future Neurology with the continued publication of timely, high quality manuscripts. We are proud to present some of our content highlights within this article. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of our valued Editorial Board members, readers and contributors for their continued support. As we move into 2020, we very much look forward to seeing the journals continuous progression and development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Blackman

Academics across the sciences and humanities are increasingly being encouraged to use social media as a post-publication strategy to enhance and extend the impact of their articles and books. As well as various measures of social media impact, the turn towards publication outlets which are open access and free to use is contributing to anxieties over where, what and how to publish. This is all the more pernicious given the increasing measures of academic value that govern the academy, and the stresses, strains and hidden injuries that structure academic life. This article will debate these issues and their consequences for the humanities and social sciences by analysing the contours of a recent controversy in academic science publishing, which follows the after-lives of a highly cited journal article. This includes a discussion of the value and status of post-publication peer review, and the politics of open access publishing, of citation and the public communication of science within digital environments and archives.


CytoJournal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod B Shidham ◽  
Barbara F Atkinson

Significant efforts, time, and resources are devoted for peer-reviewing numerous CytoJournal manuscripts. The Editorial Board of CytoJournal shares a significant proportion of this activity. Additional peers are requested to join periodically as ‘academic editors’ and reviewers to review CytoJournal manuscripts. We thank all the reviewers and academic editors for their time and efforts for completing the peer-review of CytoJournal manuscripts during 2006. The continued success of this important academic exercise depends on their continued enthusiasm to support with their highest standards. We also thank all the contributing authors for selecting CytoJournal and supporting open access initiative, which allows retention of the copyrights to their corresponding academic accomplishments.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document