COVID-19: a crash test for biomedical publishing?

The effect of COVID-19 on biomedical publishing (BP) (i.e. scientific biomedical periodicals continuously published by research communities or commercial publishers) has not been deeply explored. To estimate the immediate COVID-19 impact on BP, we have assessed PubMed-indexed articles about COVID-19 (PMIAC) from December 2019 to April 2020. PMIAC have been classified according to publication date, country, and journals for evaluation of time-, region- and scientometric-dependant impact of COVID-19 on BP and have been curated manually (i.e. each entry has been individually analyzed). PMIAC analysis reflects geographic and temporal parameters of outbreak spread. A major BP problem is related to the fact that only 40% of articles report/review/analyze data. Another BP weakness is the clusterization of “highly-trusted” publications according to countries of origin and “highly impacting” journals. Finally, a problem highlighted by COVID-19 crisis is the increased specification of biomedical research. To solve the problem, analytical reviews integrating data from different areas of biology and medicine are required. The data on PMIAC suggest priority of “what is published” over “where it is published” and “who are the authors”. We believe that our brief analysis may help to shape forthcoming BP to become more effective in solving immediate problems resulted from global threats.

Relationships among Commercial Biases and Author Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Publishing

Recently, concerns have been raised over the potential impacts of commercial biases on editorial practices in biomedical publishing. Specifically, it has been suggested that commercial biases may make editors more open to publishing articles with author conflicts of interest (aCOI). Using a data set of 128,781 articles published in 159 journals, we evaluated the relationships among commercial publishing biases and reported author conflicts of interest. The 159 journals were grouped according to commercial biases (reprint services, advertising revenue, and ownership by a large commercial publishing firm). 30.6% (39,440) of articles were published in journals showing no evidence of commercial publishing biases. 33.9% (43,630) were published in journals accepting advertising and reprint fees; 31.7% (40,887) in journals owned by large publishing firms; 1.2% (1,589) in journals accepting reprint fees only; and 2.5 % (3,235) in journals accepting only advertising fees. Journals with commercial biases were more likely to publish articles with aCOI (9.2% (92/1000) vs. 6.4% (64/1000), p = 0.024). In the multivariate analysis, only a journal’s acceptance of reprint fees served as a significant predictor (OR = 2.81 at 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.6). Shared control estimation was used to evaluate the relationships between commercial publishing biases and aCOI frequency in total and by type. BCa-corrected mean difference effect sizes ranged from -1.0 to 6.1, and confirm findings indicating that accepting reprint fees may constitute the most significant commercial bias. The findings indicate that concerns over the influence of industry advertising in medical journals may be overstated, and that accepting fees for reprints may constitute the largest risk of bias for editorial decision-making.

Protean Uses of Trust: A Curious Case of Science Hoaxes

This article explores an intervention that practises the ‘art of deception’ in the context of biomedical publishing. Specifically, we explore the science hoax aimed at revealing problems in the peer review process. We pose a question – are science hoaxes based on deception ever justified? Drawing on interviews with biomedical scientists in the UK, we identify the issue of trust as the key element in the scientists’ evaluations of hoaxes. Hoaxes are seen by some to increase trust, and are seen by others to damage trust. Trust in science is thus a Protean concept: it can be used to argue for two completely different, and sometimes contradictory, positions. In this case, the same argument of trust was recognizably invoked to defend the hoaxes, and to argue against them.

Improving the biomedical research literature: insights from authors’ editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies

A team of stakeholders in biomedical publishing recently proposed a set of core competencies for journal editors, as a resource that can inform training programs for editors and ultimately improve the quality of the biomedical research literature. This initiative, still in its early stages, would benefit from additional sources of expert information. Based on our experiences as authors’ editors, we offer two suggestions on how to strengthen these competencies so that they better respond to the needs of readers and authors – the main users of and contributors to research journals. First, journal editors should be able to ensure that authors are given useful feedback on the language and writing in submitted manuscripts, beyond a (possibly incorrect) blanket judgement of whether the English is “acceptable” or not. Second, journal editors should be able to deal effectively with inappropriate text re-use and plagiarism. These additional competencies would, we believe, be valued by other stakeholders in biomedical research publication as markers of editorial quality.

Improving the biomedical research literature: insights from authors’ editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies

A team of stakeholders in biomedical publishing recently proposed a set of core competencies for journal editors, as a resource that can inform training programs for editors and ultimately improve the quality of the biomedical research literature. This initiative, still in its early stages, would benefit from additional sources of expert information. Based on our experiences as authors’ editors, we offer two suggestions on how to strengthen these competencies so that they better respond to the needs of readers and authors – the main users of and contributors to research journals. First, journal editors should be able to ensure that authors are given useful feedback on the language and writing in submitted manuscripts, beyond a (possibly incorrect) blanket judgement of whether the English is “acceptable” or not. Second, journal editors should be able to deal effectively with inappropriate text re-use and plagiarism. These additional competencies would, we believe, be valued by other stakeholders in biomedical research publication as markers of editorial quality.

If funders and libraries subscribed to open access: The case of eLife, PLOS, and BioOne

Following on recent initiatives in which funders and libraries directly fund open access publishing, this study works out the economics of systematically applying this approach to three biomedical and biology publishing entities by determining the publishing costs for the funders that sponsored the research, while assigning the costs for unsponsored articles to the libraries. The study draws its data from the non-profit biomedical publishers eLife and PLOS, and the nonprofit journal aggregator BioOne, with this sample representing a mix of publishing revenue models, including funder sponsorship, article processing charges (APC), and subscription fees. This funder-library open access subscription model is proposed as an alternative to both the closed-subscription model, which funders and libraries no longer favor, and the APC open access model, which has limited scalability across scholarly publishing domains. Utilizing PubMed filtering and manual-sampling strategies, as well as publicly available publisher revenue data, the study demonstrates that in 2015, 86 percent of the articles in eLife and PLOS acknowledged funder support, as did 76 percent of the articles in the largely subscription journals of BioOne. Twelve percent of the articles identified the NIH as a funder, 8 percent identifies other U.S. government agencies. Approximately half of the articles were funded by non-U.S. government agencies, including 1 percent by Wellcome Trust and 0.5 percent by Howard Hughes Medical Institute. For 17 percent of the articles, which lacked a funder, the study demonstrates how a collection of research libraries, similar to the one currently subscribing to BioOne, could cover publishing costs. The goal of the study is to inform stakeholder considerations of open access models that can work across the disciplines by (a) providing a cost breakdown for direct funder and library support for open access publishing; (b) positing the use of publishing data-management organizations (such as Crossref and ORCID) to facilitate per article open access support; and (c) proposing ways in which such a model offers a more efficient, equitable, and scalable approach to open access than the prevailing APC model, which originated with biomedical publishing.