KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent survey by Delta Think saw article processing charges (APCs) for fully open access and hybrid journals rising by around 10% and 4%, respectively, between 2023–2024.
• Delta Think concludes that because APC increases are below the rate of inflation, these costs are becoming cheaper in real terms, with authors getting slightly more value for money than in previous years.

Article processing charges (APCs) and open access (OA) have certainly been hot topics here at the Publication Plan. While OA is considered essential for broadening the impact of scientific research globally, the APCs associated with gold OA can represent a barrier to publishing equity. Monitoring trends in APCs is, therefore, important. To that end, the Delta Think group run an annual survey of >30 key publishers to assess price changes. In a recent report, they explored the realities of APC increases after adjusting for inflation.

Using the global consumer price index (CPI) to examine whether APCs are becoming cheaper or more expensive in real terms, Delta Think found:

• APC list prices rose between 2023 and 2024, with increases of ~10% and ~4% for fully OA and hybrid journals, respectively.
• Real-term APCs for all OA journals (fully OA and hybrid) fell most years since 2017, with the exception of 2021 when large increases were seen alongside a modest inflation rate.
• Fully OA journals show a slightly different picture, with real-term APCs rising as often as they have fallen over the same time period.
• Above-inflation price rises for fully OA journals were particularly notable going into 2021 and 2024.

As context to their findings, the group highlight that the average inflation rate for this period (per the global CPI) was ~4%, spiking at >8% in 2022, with a prediction of ~6% for 2024.

Delta Think conclude that, overall, OA prices are rising, but not as fast as the rate of inflation, meaning the cost of OA is actually becoming cheaper, with authors getting slightly better value for money.

Delta Think conclude that, overall, OA prices are rising, but not as fast as the rate of inflation, meaning the cost of OA is actually becoming cheaper, with authors getting slightly better value for money. They note that while the prices of fully OA journals are increasing faster than inflation, these remain cheaper than hybrid prices and are thus growing from a lower starting point. Finally, Delta Think call upon authors to be mindful of this detail: if concerns exist around OA affordability, understanding real-term costs is key.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Recent survey data reveal that questionable research practices remain relatively common.
• Unearned authorship is of particular concern and thought to be caused by misunderstandings surrounding what counts as a substantial contribution to a publication.

Transgressions of research integrity can undermine the reputation of academic institutions and threaten public trust in scientific findings. In a recent Nature Index article, Dalmeet Singh Chawla reported on a large-scale survey that suggests questionable research practices (QRPs) are still commonplace, with differing attitudes towards research integrity in Europe and the US.

The International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS), which forms part of the 4-year ‘Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity’ (SOPs4RI) project, asked 45,000 Europe-based and 2,300 US-based academics about their experience of 8 QRPs and how they perceived their own and their organisation’s efforts to maintain high research integrity standards. The results, published on the preprint server MetaArXiv in October 2022, revealed that:

• The most commonly encountered QRP in both Europe and the US was unearned authorship (69% vs 55%), followed by poor supervision of junior colleagues (56% vs 49%) and inadequate peer review (54% vs 50%).
• 74% of US-based respondents were ‘very confident’ in maintaining high research integrity standards, compared with only 52% in Europe.
• Less than half of US-based and less than a third of Europe-based researchers expressed confidence in their organisation’s effectiveness in supporting research integrity.

The higher confidence in meeting integrity standards among American researchers was attributed by some academics to the more competitive working culture in the US, which could result in under-reporting of QRPs.

The most commonly encountered QRP in both Europe and the US was unearned authorship (69% vs 55%), followed by poor supervision of junior colleagues (56% vs 49%) and inadequate peer review (54% vs 50%).

Singh also called attention to data from an Australian survey, which show that the frequency of QRPs has increased in recent years, with 47% of respondents reporting that they were affected by QRPs in 2022, compared with 38% in a similar 2019 survey.

Nick Allum, the lead author of the IRIS study, points out in Singh’s report that there is no standard definition for what constitutes an adequate contribution to a publication, which likely contributes to the high prevalence of unearned authorship. Tools such as the ISMPP Authorship Algorithm can be helpful in guiding ethical author selection. However, as noted by Allum et al, creating and maintaining a culture of research integrity will require a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions, and funders.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• 167 patients and caregivers were surveyed on 4 different plain language summary (PLS) formats: infographic or text-based with varying complexity.
• Infographic and medium-complexity text were the preferred PLS formats; oversimplified text was viewed negatively.

Results of a survey published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research have revealed that the preferred format of plain language summaries (PLSs) for patients and caregivers is infographic-based, followed by medium-complexity text-only summary.

Leia Martínez Silvagnoli and colleagues selected three peer-reviewed research articles on three chronic diseases representing different age groups:

• psoriasis (younger population)
• multiple sclerosis (middle-aged population)
• rheumatoid arthritis (older population).

The authors developed four PLSs for each article: three text-only summaries written using high-, medium-, or low-complexity wording, and one infographic. The readability and presentation of the PLSs were assessed via an online survey, which was sent to organisations representing patients and caregivers for each of the three disease states. A total of 167 patients and caregivers completed the survey, of whom approximately 90% were women and over half had a university degree.

Patients and caregivers showed a clear preference for an infographic PLS format.

Infographic was the preferred PLS format for all three articles, and medium complexity (corresponding to a reading age of 14–17 years) was the preferred readability level. Participants commented that the graphical and medium-complexity PLSs were clear, easy to understand, and included all the relevant details in a concise way. The high-complexity PLSs were marked down for excessive use of scientific jargon, whilst the low-complexity PLSs were criticised for being oversimplified and lacking key statistical data. These preferences did not change regardless of education status, but younger participants generally preferred the infographic over the text-only format.

The authors note that although their study provides key insights into the optimal format for communicating medicine-based research to a nonexpert audience, further research is needed to capture preferences for the broader patient population, including those with other illnesses and different health literacy levels. With PLSs becoming more commonplace for medical research articles, we hope that audience preferences are taken into consideration to maximise understanding.

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Most respondents to an International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) poll opted to contact the journal to halt submission of a manuscript that was accidentally submitted without proper author approval or data checks.

An enthusiastic client has jumped the gun and submitted a manuscript before all the authors have had a chance to approve the final draft and before a full data check has been performed. A recent ISMPP ‘What would you do?’ poll looked at the possible approaches to take when faced with this potentially difficult scenario. As always, Dr Eric Y Wong (Janssen) reviewed the results in the MAP newsletter and provided his insights into the best practice approach.

The poll asked: An industry client working on regional publications submits a manuscript to a journal before all authors have approved the final content and before a full data check has been performed. The authors had reviewed all previous drafts of the manuscript.

What would you do?

The poll was answered by 136 respondents and the results revealed a clear preferred approach, with around three-quarters of respondents suggesting putting the submission on hold while the author approvals and data check are obtained. The poll results in full were:

• Recommend that the client contacts the journal to explain that the manuscript was submitted before all steps were completed and ask if the submission can be put on hold until the submission site is updated with the author approved version: 72.8% of responses.
• Explain the situation to the authors and ask for their approval of the now submitted manuscript; any further comments and the accuracy check can be completed during the peer review process and changes incorporated in response to reviewers: 21.3%.
• Schedule a meeting with all the authors to explain the situation and ask for their guidance on next steps: 5.9%.
• Do nothing and wait for the journal to provide peer reviewer comments; it is too late to do anything: 0%.

Dr Wong reminded readers that submitting a publication without author approvals or quality check of the data was not appropriate as both were standard requirements according to Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria.

“Documenting final approvals of all authors and ensuring integrity/accuracy of submitted data are standard requirements for manuscripts per ICMJE and GPP3.”

Dr Wong supported the most popular poll option in which the journal is contacted to halt the submission as this would avoid the journal editors or peer reviewers proceeding with potentially inaccurate and unapproved content. He suggested that while contacting the authors regarding next steps would be a reasonable option, the outcome of discussions would likely be to contact the journal and take the actions described in the preferred first option. Thus, discussions should take place promptly so that the manuscript is not sent for editorial or peer review in the meantime. Dr Wong did not recommend the approach of obtaining author approvals after the fact and correcting errors during the peer review process as this could lead to additional complications, is not good publication practice, and would set a bad precedent. Dr Wong concluded that the ‘do nothing as it is too late’ option would also not be the correct approach as it simply was not true, as most respondents to the survey recognised.

—————————————————–

The Publication Plan aims to provide a valuable resource for medical publications professionals, offering easy access and informed insights on topical issues. We want to know your thoughts on how we’re doing, so that we can deliver the content you need in formats that work best for you. Please click here to complete a short survey about how you use The Publication Plan and what features you find most useful. It should only take a few minutes to complete and is anonymous. The survey will close on Tuesday 31 August, so take your chance now to shape the future of The Publication Plan!

——————————————————–

Peer review is the cornerstone of quality scientific publishing. However, the ever-increasing number of papers that require reviewing has not been matched by an increase in the number of researchers willing and able to review them. In an effort to improve the efficiency and quality of the peer review process, a recent survey from IOP Publishing and Publons aimed to gain insights into the motivating factors that lead researchers to take on peer review responsibilities. More than 1,200 researchers were surveyed: over half of respondents were associate or full professors and, reflective of author/reviewer demographics in physics, 86% were male.

An interest in the paper was the key motivating factor for researchers to accept an invite to peer review, suggesting technologies that can match reviewers to the right paper may be effective in reducing ‘reviewer fatigue’. Other key motivators included the reputation of the journal and engagement with the scholarly community. Motivations remained broadly similar regardless of the respondents’ career level; however, early career researchers (including post-docs) were more motivated by recognition and building a relationship with the journal or editor than more experienced reviewers. The majority (59%) of respondents said in-kind or cash benefits provided very little motivation.

Reviewers, particularly those in India and early career researchers, appreciated feedback, either by being notified about the final decision on the paper or with a commentary on the quality of their review. As such functionality is often already included in peer review systems, the report’s authors suggest that there may be opportunities to improve feedback loops. Receiving recognition by being named as a reviewer on a published article was met with a mixed response, with some expressing concerns over conflicts of interest and a lack of anonymity compromising the peer review process. However, this approach was more popular with early career researchers, as was receiving third-party credit through the likes of Publons and ORCID. Overall, the most popular form of recognition was acknowledgement in journal end-of-year lists, which was preferred over awards or certificates/badges for passing peer review training.

A quarter of reviewers stated that they received too many requests in relation to the time they had available, but this varied by region and researcher experience.

Despite some high-profile studies indicating that there is systematic bias in the peer review process related to gender or geographic location, 76% of respondents to this survey stated that they had not experienced such bias. However, issues relating to poor peer review practices, such as conflicts of interest, journal politics, and reviewer citation manipulation, were each identified by around 10% of those respondents reporting an experience of bias.

David Evans, Peer Review Product Manager at IOP Publishing, provided his final thoughts on how insights from the survey may be used to change the way peer reviewers are approached, engaged, and supported to ensure the processes for delivering high quality reviews evolve with the rising demand.

“As publishers, we must improve our practices, address reviewer concerns and evolve our approach in line with their needs.”

——————————————————–

Summary by Alice Wareham PhD, CMPP from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsor, Aspire Scientific Ltd

The latest ‘What would you do?’ poll from the International Society of Medical Publications Professionals (ISMPP) focuses on how one might deal with concerns arising from a manuscript review by non-industry, non-English speaking authors. Like previous polls, the aim is to spark debate and communication about potential approaches for handling tricky situations that may be faced by medical publications professionals. In the MAP newsletter, Eric Y. Wong (Janssen) discussed the results of the latest poll, providing his own views on each suggested approach to the problem.

The poll asked: You are providing medical writing support on a manuscript for which all non-industry authors are from a non-English-speaking country. The manuscript is written in English, but it is clear from the kick-off call that very few of the non-industry authors have a good understanding of English. The industry authors recommend that all communication goes through them so that they can interact with the non-industry authors in their local language and obtain their review feedback and approval. Although an appropriate level of comments is received throughout the manuscript’s development from industry authors, they indicate (usually within 24 hours of the start of each review) that all non-industry authors are happy with the content. You are now ready to initiate the author approval step but have concerns that the non-industry authors do not meet all the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship.

What would you do?

The results of the poll, which was answered by 69 respondents, were:

• Suggest that a third party (e.g., translation service or local branch of the medical writing agency) become involved to document reviews up to now and proceed to final approval: 33.3% of responses
• Proceed with final author approval step: 1.5%
• Work with industry authors to obtain documentation of author reviews before proceeding to final approval: 49.3%
• Suggest that the final draft be translated into the local language for the final approval step: 15.9%

Wong explains that any authorship concerns should be raised and reconciled prior to proceeding with final author approvals. Translation of the final draft may be helpful if time and budget allows. Involvement of a third party at this late stage may potentially complicate matters further and result in wasted time and resources, whereas working with industry authors to obtain documentation from non-industry authors may be more time- and cost-efficient, particularly if relationships already exist between authors.

Wong highlights that if a company often deals with non-English speaking authors, translation support should be factored in as part of the publication development plan. Wong suggests scheduling meetings to review content so that authors are actively engaged in the process, which may not be the case when communicating via email or reviewing on a publication management platform. Also, and as recommended in the Good Publication practice (GPP3) guidelines, aligning early on what is expected of authors and the processes involved in the review process can help avoid these situations.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

——————————————————–

Summary by Alice Wareham PhD, CMPP from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsor, Aspire Scientific Ltd.

Agreeing the order of authors on a publication can be a tricky and contentious issue. Recently, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) conducted a survey about strategies for deciding authorship order. Releasing the results in the MAP Newsletter, most of the respondents favoured objective scoring of contributions as the best approach.

Discussing the results, Eric Wong notes that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria provide clear guidance on who does – and who does not – qualify to be an author, and further recommendations are available in GPP3. However,

“There is currently no single widely accepted methodology to make authorship order decisions…”.

The survey asked how respondents would look to resolve a scenario where multiple people believed they should be first author based on their contributions. Of the 89 respondents to the poll:

• Sixty-five percent opted to systematically list out author contributions, assigning an objective weight to each type of activity, with the total weighted score for each author used to determine author order.
• Thirty-five percent chose to share lead authorship, listing the authors alphabetically and indicating that those authors contributed equally.
• None voted to decide the author order based on experience or renown, or voted that the study sponsor should make the decision.

Wong emphasises that whatever approach is taken, how and why the decision has been made needs to be clear to authors. He also highlights that the ISMPP Author Algorithm Task Force is currently developing a standardised framework for assessing author contributions that could help to promote a consistent approach to resolving the author order question. We look forward to reading their recommendations, which Wong notes should be shared later this year.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

——————————————————–

Summary by Ian Faulkner PhD from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

As previously reported, the International Society of Medical Publications Professionals (ISMPP) is conducting a series of ‘What would you do?’ polls, to spark debate amongst medical publication professionals about the best approach for dealing with challenging situations. The results of a new question recently published in the MAP newsletter, relate to the issue of dealing with a non-responsive lead author. In the article, Eric Y. Wong (Janssen) discusses the findings, sharing his own views on each potential solution to the problem.

The poll asked: The lead author of a manuscript in development was key in acquiring data for the study and actively engaged in the initial discussions that shaped the outline for the paper. However, he/she was slow to send feedback on the first draft, and the second draft has been with him/her for more than 2 months, despite exhaustive attempts to get in touch through multiple channels (via co-authors, field medical staff, etc.). Some of the other authors have contributed equally to the design of the study, and direction and revisions of the paper. Several of them have indicated that they want to remove the lead author as an author on the manuscript because of the delays. Another co-author has suggested “demoting” the lead author to another position on the by-line. What would you do? 

The results of the poll, which was answered by 60 respondents, were:

• Remove the lead author and acknowledge their contribution so the team can proceed with manuscript development: 0% of responses
• Keep authorship as it is and continue to follow up with lead author until a response is received: 16.5%
• Agree to demote the lead author to another position, sending an email to them to explain the decision: 20.0%
• Address comments from all authors, send the final manuscript for all author approval by a given deadline, stating firmly but politely that non-responding authors will be removed from the manuscript: 63.5%

Wong commented that, although a key role for a medical publication professional is to push forward manuscript development to meet publication plans, removing an author to do so, would not be appropriate in this scenario. Removal of an individual from the author list should be approved by all authors of the paper. Similarly, promoting another individual to lead author position, while acceptable if they have contributed sufficiently, would require the approval of all authors. Continuing to pursue the lead author until a response is received may be an acceptable approach, says Wong, as long as this did not prevent the prompt publication of results that were necessary for the safe and appropriate use of a therapy. Sending the revised manuscript for approval and stating that non-responsive authors would be removed, was the most popular course of action. Wong notes that this approach would allow the ongoing development of the manuscript and is aligned with the ICMJE authorship criteria.

Wong explains that the consequences of not adhering to proposed development timelines should be clearly set out early in the publication development process during, for example, the kick-off call or within authorship agreements.

What are your thoughts? Add your comments below.

——————————————————–

Summary by Alice Wareham PhD, CMPP from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

Patient and public involvement in clinical research is attracting increased attention, not least because it has the potential to increase the quality and value of research. The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) journals have adopted innovative strategies aimed at involving patients and the public in their publishing models. These include the incorporation of patient and public review into their peer review processes. Last year, The BMJ and RIE invited these reviewers to participate in a survey to evaluate their experiences. The results were published in BMJ Open in September and are being reviewed by the journals to enhance the guidance and support they provide to their reviewers.

Overall, 224 invited reviewers responded to the survey. Of 157 who had previously reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to others and an overwhelming majority (92%) thought that patient and public review should be adopted by more journals. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in research, to ensure the literature is understandable and relevant, and by the intellectual challenge. Only a small number of reviewers (16/224, 7%) were concerned about performing open review (in which reviewers are asked to sign their reviews, and these are seen by the authors of the paper and potentially the readers of the article). When asked how their experience of being a patient reviewer could be improved, respondents were keen for more resources, training and support through the peer review process.

RIE have already acted on feedback from their patient and wider reviewer community and have developed reviewer guidelines, including links to training resources and example reviews. The BMJ are also striving to make their processes “as straightforward and smooth as possible” and provide reviewers with guidance as well as training packages. The BMJ and RIE hope that the survey results may also be of benefit to other journals thinking of initiating patient and public review and note that “further research is planned to identify where and how patient and public reviewers add value to the peer review process.”

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

——————————————————–

Summary by Louise Niven DPhil, CMPP from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd