Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective

Objectives To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

Problems faced by Researchers and pressure on Impact Factor Journal Editors

doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.4296 How to cite this:Jawaid SA. Problems faced by Researchers and pressure on Impact Factor Journal Editors. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(3):616-620. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.4296 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Avoiding predatory journals and publishers: a cross-sectional study

Background: Predatory journals (PJs) are journals that receive and publish articles through unethical publishing practices. Due to the boom of PJs, researchers face a wide range of journals from which to choose. Non-peer reviewed and low-quality articles can ruin the trustworthiness of science and have a damaging impact on decision-makers. Objective:&nbsp;To assess the level of awareness among Ethiopian researchers of PJs and to improve the awareness level through training. Method:&nbsp;The participants were professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers from different disciplines. The study included 18 statements for participants to indicate their level of awareness on the Likert scale, questions on knowledge resources on PJs, and open-ended questions about ways of avoiding PJs. A one-day programme trained the participants in detecting and avoiding PJs. Results:&nbsp;43 participants completed the pre-assessment online survey and 37 participants completed the post-assessment survey. Many researchers were unaware of PJs and found it somewhat difficult to differentiate PJs from legitimate journals. However, during the post-assessment, the awareness level improved and the participants&rsquo; rating of the task of differentiating PJs from legitimate journals changed from &lsquo;Somewhat difficult&rsquo; to &lsquo;Easy&rsquo;. Conclusion:&nbsp;Many researchers were unaware of the potential distinctions between PJs and legitimate journals that are crucial to an appropriate journal for publishing. Especially low awareness was found on the journal impact factor, journal indexing services, and reputable publishers. Hence, before manuscript submission, authors ought to know and practise evaluating journals on the basis of the recommended criteria.

The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics

Replication failures of influential findings across fields of science have contributed to a credibility crisis, and the sub-area of human electrophysiology has not escaped unscathed. In an effort to restore credibility, recent initiatives aim to improve methodological rigor of research via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers.

Supervising Students in Scientific Writing for Peer Review & Possible Publication

Innovation in assessment of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) courses in subjects such as biology and biochemistry is a widely discussed topic. We report the use of a novel, research-integrated course assessment designed to increase students' self-motivation and improve their learning outcomes. We encouraged submissions to peer-reviewed journals, supported by stepwise supervision on writing by the instructor, which led to possible publication of some student-written articles. We compared the results from two classes in 2015 and 2016, assessing the quality of the published articles on the basis of journal impact factor, journal Scopus score, and number of citations of each article, using supervised assignments to fulfill this goal. Assessment of research-integrated biology learning via potential publishing may motivate students to actively learn a biochemistry topic and encourage early-career professional development.

A Perspective on the Relevance and Public Reception of Psychological Science

In this short commentary, data from the website Reddit is used to examine how people receive social psychological research. The data show that people care greatly about research dealing with humans: links tagged as psychology, social sciences, and health are upvoted more than other categories on Reddit. Within the category of psychology, articles were coded based on the topic of research. Articles dealing generally with social psychological topics are among the highest in number and upvotes on the subreddit r/Science. Many posts were upvoted tens of thousands of times. However, upvotes on Reddit are unrelated to scientific publishing metrics (e.g., impact factor, journal rankings, and citations), suggesting a disconnect between what psychologists and Redditors may see as relevant. These findings also highlight some points for reflection. For example, psychologists may benefit from thinking about the purpose, goals, and beneficiaries of the research they pursue. Additionally, the level of attention that some psychological research receives has implications for transparent research practices. Researchers have a responsibility to ensure that findings are reported accurately and transparently because, whether scientists like it or not, people care about psychological research, they share it, and use it in their lives.

Comment: A Perspective on the Relevance of Psychological Science and Some Implications for the Reform Movement

Concerns about the generalizability, veracity, and relevance of social psychological research often resurface within psychology. While many changes are being implemented to improve the integrity of published research and to clarify the publication record, less attention has been given to the questions of relevance. In this short commentary, I offer my perspective on questions of relevance and present some data from the website Reddit. The data show that people care greatly about psychological research—social psychology studies being among the highest upvoted on the subreddit r/science. However, upvotes on Reddit are unrelated to metrics used by researchers to gauge importance (e.g., impact factor, journal rankings and citations), suggesting a disconnect between what psychologists and lay-audiences may see as relevant. I interpret these data in light of the replication crisis and suggest that the spotlight on our field puts greater importance on the need for reform. Whether we like it or not, people care about, share, and use psychological research in their lives, which means we should ensure that our findings are reported accurately and transparently.