KEY TAKEAWAY

• More than 100 institutions have declared their support for eLife’s reviewed preprint model, following the journal’s loss of impact factor.

Rather than only accepting papers recommended for publication by peer reviewers, eLife publishes all reviewed research as reviewed preprints. However, Clarivate, the provider of Web of Science, only indexes peer reviewed content, resulting in the loss of eLife’s impact factor for 2025. Rather than changing their publishing model, eLife agreed to be partially indexed in Web of Science’s Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). But how has this been received?

As reported in Research Information, eLife surveyed over 100 institutions and funders to assess how their publishing model is viewed. Over 95% of respondents endorsed non-traditional publishing approaches like eLife’s, confirming publications will continue to be factored into hiring, promotion, and funding decisions.

Promoting integrity or outdated metrics?

Dr Nandita Quaderi, Senior Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of the Web of Science at Clarivate, stressed that policies must be applied universally to protect research integrity. Quaderi warned that “cover-to-cover indexing of journals in which publication is decoupled from validation by peer review risks allowing untrustworthy actors to benefit from publishing poor quality content”.

On the other hand, Ashley Farley, Senior Officer of Knowledge & Research Services at the Gates Foundation, believes Web of Science’s policy “reinforces outdated publishing metrics that hinder innovation”, while Damian Pattinson, Executive Director at eLife, noted that with increasing emphasis on open science, “eLife remains confident that its model represents the future of scholarly publishing – one that prioritises scientific quality, transparency, and integrity over outdated prestige metrics”.

“eLife remains confident that its model represents the future of scholarly publishing – one that prioritises scientific quality, transparency, and integrity over outdated prestige metrics.”
– Damian Pattinson, eLife

As debates over the future of the impact factor continue, Farley believes that “indexers must evolve to support responsible, transparent models like eLife’s”.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Inclusive publishing recognises the value of all validated research in enhancing scientific reproducibility and progress.
• Publishers must embrace inclusive practices to reflect diversity within the scientific landscape.

Inclusive journals value null results, preliminary data, and experimental design papers, which promote reproducibility and can hasten innovation. Unlike selective journals, which prioritise ‘high impact’ discoveries, inclusive journals recognise that research does not need to be ground-breaking to be an advancement. In a Springer Nature article, Ritu Dhand discusses the benefits of inclusive publishing.

COVID-19: a case study

Dhand highlights how the COVID-19 crisis created an unprecedented need for peer-reviewed science. Journals responded by adopting inclusive publishing practices, recognising the importance of preliminary data and innovative methods. The rapid dissemination of pilot studies and null results enabled scientists worldwide to focus precious time and effort on pushing unexplored frontiers. Inclusive publishing proved pivotal in an extraordinary global effort to compress drug discovery timelines from years to months. However, these inclusive practices faded after the pandemic.

The price of selectivity

Dhand notes that 50% of research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance. A study prepared for the European Commission estimated that in 2018, €26 billion was wasted on duplicated research in Europe alone.

50% of funded research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance.

Value beyond citation metrics

Inclusive journals often publish a high number of papers, leading to lower impact factors. However, the value of the research can be measured by other metrics. For example, over a third of Springer Nature’s inclusive content addresses the UN Sustainable Development Goals, demonstrating its societal impact.

Diversity in research publication

Inclusive publication practices also involve increasing the diversity of authors and countries contributing research. Dhand highlights that a similar proportion of research publications are from Western Nations and Asia, yet editorial boards and reviewers remain Western dominated. As key decision makers, individuals in these roles should reflect the diversity of the research communities.

Dhand acknowledges that selective journals will continue to offer a platform for ground-breaking research, but highlights the need for widespread inclusive publication practices to satisfy the evolving needs of science and society.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Publication extenders make articles more accessible, increase citations, and aid reader comprehension.
• Lack of adoption by publishers or and difficulty finding publication extenders on journal platforms highlights opportunities for improvements.

Publication extenders, such as plain-language summaries (PLSs), infographics, and video abstracts, have become incredibly useful tools for reaching a wider audience, enhancing the impact of research. Yet evidence supporting their use has not been readily available. To address this, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Digital/Visual Communications Committee developed the Publication Extenders Evidence Resource. In an article published in The MAP Newsletter, Kelly Soldavin and colleagues discuss key findings, demonstrating the value of publication extenders.

Publication extenders improve article metrics

Publication extenders can lead to increased downloads, Altmetric scores, and citations. The authors point to studies that found:

• Articles with video abstracts had a 1.206 higher citation rate than those without.
• 62% of articles with a text-based PLS were downloaded significantly more than similar articles without PLSs.

Audience preferences for publication extenders vary

The authors highlight several studies assessing the format of publication extenders preferred by different groups. Patients report that publication extenders, and specifically PLSs with plain text and infographics, make articles easier to understand. On the other hand, some health care professionals prefer plain-text PLSs over graphical formats.

Uptake of publication extenders could be improved

“While the benefits of publication extenders are clear, uptake by authors and journals is low.”

While the benefits of publication extenders are clear, uptake by authors and journals is generally low: one study found only 11 of 30 haematology journals allowed PLSs. Even when publication extenders are used, they are often difficult to find on journal platforms.

Looking to the future

The authors conclude that research consistently shows publication extenders enhance the impact of research, making it more accessible across a wide audience. Publishers should consider ways to make publication extenders more discoverable, while authors and publication planning professionals should consider platforms other than those offered by journals to improve the accessibility of digital content.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Patient journeys should be part of a wider strategy and involve a range of stakeholders.
• Regular updates are key in ensuring patient journeys stay relevant and continue to reflect real world experiences of patients and caregivers.

Patient journeys can provide the pharmaceutical industry with rich data to inform strategy across product life cycles. In a PMLiVE article, Stephanie Hall and Louise Collins discuss 3 actions the industry can take to optimise patient journeys and unlock their full potential.

Patient journeys should be part of the wider strategy

Hall and Collins recommend integrating patient journeys into wider strategy and life cycle management. Combining quantitative and qualitative aspects provides both measurable data and insights into the real-world issues experienced by patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. This information, they say, can help clarify which areas are the most important.

Gather a diverse team

The authors suggest greater collaboration adds greater depth to patient journeys: bringing together medical, marketing, medical affairs, digital, and analytical stakeholders creates an environment that fosters a broader range of information and ideas. Additionally, including patient advocates and healthcare professionals creates richer information, forges stronger relationships, and uncovers nuances that may otherwise remain hidden.

“Including patient advocates and healthcare professionals creates richer information, forges stronger relationships, and uncovers nuances that may otherwise remain hidden.”

Create and iterate

Patient journeys are dynamic; regular reassessments enable new data and insights to be integrated, ensuring the journey continues to represent real experiences of patients and caregivers. When used creatively, patient journeys can help disrupt standard strategies.

The authors describe the importance of choosing the right format for patient journeys:

• Data-rich flowcharts may help identify gaps in care.
• Graphical approaches may allow cross-functional teams to better understand complex interactions.
• Combining these formats can provide measurable outcomes weaved with emotional context.

The authors conclude that developing and regularly updating thorough patient journeys can stimulate innovation, result in more effective processes, and improve patient outcomes.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent analysis revealed ~20,000 scientific authors publishing impossibly high numbers of articles.
• High-volume publishing in the pursuit of inflated metrics represents a threat to research integrity.

We have reported previously on the rising numbers of highly prolific scientific authors. Dalmeet Singh Chawla recently highlighted this issue in Chemical & Engineering News, discussing findings that ~20,000 scientists from Stanford’s top 2% list publish an “implausibly high” number of papers. Singh Chawla explored the implications of high-volume publishing on research integrity, as well as potential solutions.

Study findings

The study, published in Accountability in Research, examined the publication patterns of ~200,000 researchers spanning 22 distinct disciplines, from Stanford University’s list of top 2% scientists (based on citation metrics). It found that:

• around 10% (20,000 scientists) produced an impossibly high volume of publications
• some scientists published hundreds of studies per year, with hundreds or even thousands of new co-authors
• approximately 1,000 were early-career scientists with ≤10 years’ academic experience.

Impact on research integrity

Analysis authors, Simone Pilia and Peter Mora, blame the surprising number of hyperprolific authors on a culture that rewards publication quantity through high scores on metrics. They suggest that this not only compromises research quality but leads to some scientists, “particularly the younger ones”, feeling pressured. Pilia and Mora linked the incentive to churn out large quantities of publications with “unethical practices” such as the inclusion of co-authors who have not made adequate contributions to the research. Based on their findings, Pilia and Mora warn that normalising high-volume publishing poses a significant threat to the fundamental academic process.

“Normalising high-volume publishing poses a significant threat to the fundamental academic process.”

A divisive solution?

Pilia and Mora propose adjusting metrics for scientists exceeding publication and co-authorship thresholds. However, according to Singh Chawla, information scientist Ludo Waltman fears that such adjustments would make research evaluation too complex and confusing. He proposes that research assessment should focus less on metrics and more on a wider range of research activities.

The reliability of metrics for research evaluation is an ongoing topic of discussion within the scientific community, and this latest research serves as a reminder for authors to keep research integrity at the heart of their publication decisions.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The key goals of reforming research assessment include reduced reliance on counterproductive, citation-based metrics and promotion of open science.
• New metrics designed to incentivise open science risk undermining initiatives to improve research evaluation.

Wider adoption of open science and reduced reliance on counterproductive, citation-based metrics are both key goals in the push to reform research assessment. However, in an article for Research Professional News, Ulrich Herb argues that flooding the market with open science metrics designed to incentivise researchers undermines the very reforms they are meant to promote.

Incentivising open science

Herb reports that while open science aims to improve transparency, accessibility, and collaboration in research, initiatives have struggled to gain traction with researchers. In a bid to push open science forward, advocates, research institutions, and funders have designed myriad new metrics to incentivise openness, including:

• counting outputs such as open access publications, preprints, Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) datasets, data management plans, replication studies, and pre-registrations
• measuring attention from downloads, citations, and media coverage
• analysing social dimensions via collaborations, diversity, and citizen science activities.

New metrics are already the subject of extensive research and development in Europe.

Open science metrics undermine research assessment reform

Herb believes that open science metrics are experimental, fragmented, and lacking standardisation. Their dependence on quantitative measurement conflicts with the key principles of research evaluation reform, which promote qualitative, holistic assessment. Further, because open science metrics are used both to measure behaviour and influence it, they can encourage ‘metric-driven’ activities, such as using multiple data cuts to generate high numbers of FAIR-licensed datasets, or selecting diamond open access in favour of more appropriate journals. Finally, Herb argues, the current lack of clarity around precisely what open metrics are measuring renders them as counterproductive for research assessment as the citation-based metrics they are designed to replace.

“Because open science metrics are used both to measure behaviour and influence it, they can encourage ‘metric-driven’ activities.”

Using open science metrics as a force for good

Herb suggests that, if standardised, open science metrics could promote open science practices. At present, they risk creating a culture of incentivised behaviours that contradict the very ideals of open, fair, and meaningful research evaluation. The task ahead is to ensure that open science involves a genuine shift in how research is assessed.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Current academic metrics can be manipulated, leading to unethical practices, such as self-citation and citation cartels.
• The addition of clinical guidelines and Bluesky tracking to the Altmetric Attention Score could help drive a cultural shift toward recognising genuine forms of research impact.

A recent article by Dan K Pearson on the London School of Economics’ Impact of Social Sciences blog sheds light on the growing concern over the gamification of academic metrics. Pearson highlights how the pressure to publish in high-impact journals has led to unethical practices, such as excessive self-citation, citation cartels, and even the emergence of a citation black market where researchers can purchase citations to boost their profiles.

The pressure to publish creates an environment where researchers focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work.

This environment encourages researchers to focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work. Pearson argues that this system not only undermines the integrity of academic research but also discourages public engagement and collaboration. He suggests a cultural shift is needed whereby impact-oriented activities, such as public outreach, are emphasised over citation counts.

Two recent developments to the Altmetric platform could address this need by better reflecting the real-world applications of scholarly work. As reported by Research Information, Altmetric now tracks citations in clinical guidelines, providing insights into how research informs clinical practice and patient care. This addition allows researchers and institutions to assess the practical applications of medical research, thereby informing funding decisions and publication strategies.

Altmetric has also expanded its tracking to incorporate Bluesky, a social media platform favoured by the research community. This inclusion offers a more comprehensive view of research conversations, helping to understand the broader engagement and influence of research.

By embracing these developments and promoting wider recognition of scholarly contributions, the academic community can move beyond the pitfalls of gamified metrics and toward a more authentic assessment of research impact.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Traditional metrics like impact factor still influence journal selection and engagement, despite their limitations in assessing research quality.
• Enhanced publication content, including graphical abstracts and plain language summaries, improves healthcare professional engagement.

In an article for The MAP newsletter, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Radhika Bhatia, and Sarah J Clements highlight the importance of adopting novel metrics and enhanced publication content (EPC) to improve healthcare professional (HCP) engagement with scientific publications.

Re-evaluating journal metrics

In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, traditional metrics like impact factor continue to dominate journal selection and readership decisions, despite their well-documented limitations. A survey conducted by Clements and colleagues, presented at the 2024 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, revealed that 57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish. However, such metrics do not always reflect the true value or reach of research.

57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish.

To move away from this outdated method of research assessment, publication professionals must advocate for a shift towards more diverse and transparent metrics, as outlined by the Declaration on Research Assessment. Additionally, efforts should focus on encouraging HCPs to engage with a more varied pool of publications, select appropriate target journals, and promote open access.

The EPC effect: more engagement, more impact

Elsewhere, the survey identified that graphical abstracts, plain language summaries, video summaries, and other forms of EPC are powerful tools for boosting engagement. 38.8% of HCPs are more likely to read publications with EPC, and research has also shown that articles featuring EPC tend to receive higher Altmetric scores and experience increased social media engagement than those without.

Despite the benefits, barriers such as development time, strict journal guidelines, and the fact that not all journals offer EPC options continue to hinder their broader implementation.

To enhance EPC impact and adoption, the authors recommend:

1. Educating HCPs on the importance of EPC and how to create it
2. Encouraging journals that have yet to implement EPC to adopt it
3. Advocating for standardised inclusion of EPC across journals

The authors identified future areas for exploration, including how EPC can influence clinical decision-making and patient education. By prioritising a more rigorous research evaluation process and promoting opportunities to implement EPC, the medical publishing industry can better support knowledge dissemination, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of ISMPP takes place May 12 – May 14 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C.

 REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until April 25, 2025

The theme for ISMPP’s milestone 21^st Annual Meeting is Diversity and Innovation: In Concert. This meeting gathers diverse professionals to inspire creativity, foster innovation, and advance medical communications for a more inclusive and dynamic future.

Don’t miss the premier medical communications and medical publications conference of 2025!

Topics covered include:

• Artificial Intelligence
• Omnichannel
• Plain Language Summaries
• Best Practices
• Data Visualization
• Publication Planning
• Digital Extenders
• Metrics and Analytics

9 Educational Workshop Offerings – 4 NEW Topics this Year! For both newer professionals and experienced professionals. Spaces are limited so sign up today!

Keynote Speakers, Member Research Posters/Oral Presentations, Exhibitors, Receptions, Networking, Awards, and more!

Company Team Discount/Champion Sponsorship for 10 Team Members or More!

Please contact exh-spon@ismpp.org for a discount code.

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER TODAY!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The number of highly prolific scientific authors is continuing to rise.
• Publishing behaviours could be monitored to detect unusual authorship patterns.

The number of extremely productive scientific authors is on the rise and may reflect an increase in “questionable research practices and fraud” – according to John Ioannidis, coauthor of a recent study posted on BioRxiv.

As reported in a Nature News article by Gemma Conroy, the study found that the number of extremely productive authors – defined as those who publish the equivalent of more than 60 papers a year – has almost quadrupled since a previous analysis carried out in 2018. This increase was surprising given that such high productivity levels had started to level off in 2014, said Ioannidis. Based on raw citation counts, extremely productive authors now account for 44% of the 10,000 most-cited authors across all areas of science.

To assess productivity levels in their new study, Ioannidis et al. counted all articles, reviews, and conference papers published between 2000 and 2022 and indexed in Scopus. They identified 12,624 extremely productive physicists (analysed separately due to their unique authorship practices) and 3,191 extremely productive scientists working in other areas. Topping this list was clinical medicine – perhaps unsurprising given that one in three scientists work in this field – which had 678 authors who published the equivalent of a paper at least once every 6 days during 2022.

678 authors working in clinical medicine published the equivalent of a paper at least once every 6 days during 2022.

The preprint authors speculate that a range of possible factors may explain the recent rise in extreme productivity across all research areas, including lax authorship practices, financial incentives, and paper mills. And while acknowledging that some highly prolific authors may be very talented, they caution that “spurious and unethical behaviours may also abound”. They call for unusual authorship patterns of individual scientists, teams, institutions, and countries to be monitored using centralised, standardised databases.

————————————————