KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The rise of online-only, open access publishing inadvertently spawned a parasite industry of predatory journals.
• AI, checklists, critical appraisal by authors, and registers of respectable open access journals can all help protect scientific integrity.

Predatory journals aim to lure unaware, unscrupulous, or disillusioned authors, ensnaring their research and money. In an editorial for the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, Editor-in-Chief Are Brean describes how a “tidal wave” of increasingly sophisticated predatory journals is degrading trust in science. Over at Medscape, Neurology Editor-in-Chief José Merino and host Andrew Wilner discuss how to identify legitimate, peer reviewed journals in the era of online-only, open access publishing. Read on for a summary of their top tips.

Apex predators

Brean warns that predatory journals have come a long way since librarian Jeffrey Beall coined the term in 2008. Modern predators may:

• use names that look like those of established journals
• list reputable scientists as colleagues (without their knowledge)
• use counterfeit indexing in recognised databases
• be linked to paper mills
• ‘hijack’ legitimate journals via URL fraud.

Open access fees: when are they a red flag?

Article processing charges (APCs) are a recognised and established funding model in open access scientific publishing, and most journals are now online only. So, in this environment, how can researchers tell the difference between a legitimate journal and a fraud? Brean and Merino make the following suggestions:

• Critically assess the journal’s credentials. Ask yourself:

1. Have you heard of this journal? Has anybody you know published there?
2. Does the journal have a track record? When was it established?
3. Is it supported by a recognisable publisher?
4. Is it accessible?

• Read a sample of the journal’s output. Are the articles ‘interesting, credible, and of good quality’?
• Use a free checklist.
• Ask your medical librarian for guidance.
• Consult a register of reputable journals such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Defence mechanisms

Brean also suggests that artificial intelligence could be used to expose predatory journals. Research in this area is ongoing.

For now, the editors encourage (human) authors and researchers to be careful and critical. Don’t get caught in the predatory publishing trap.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• cOAlition S plans to drop 1,589 titles from its transformative journal programme due to insufficient progress towards open access.
• The move highlights the growing importance of accelerating the shift to open access in the scientific community.

cOAlition S has decided to part ways with 1,589 journals that have been too slow in transitioning to open access (OA), as reported by Jeffrey Brainard for Science.org. The decision serves as a wake-up call to the scientific community, emphasising the urgency to embrace OA publishing.

cOAlition S, an alliance of public agencies and research funders, aims to promote immediate and unrestricted access to scientific publications that arise from publicly funded research. Aligning with its mission, cOAlition S has offered to cover OA fees for hybrid journals, on the condition that they commit to transitioning to full OA according to specified milestones:

• an annual increase of at least 5% in the proportion of OA papers relative to the total number of papers, and
• a minimum 15% growth in the share of OA papers compared to the previous year.

Out of the 2,326 transformative journals enrolled, two-thirds failed to meet these targets in 2022, leading to their planned removal from the programme at the end of 2023.

While this decision may have little impact on well-funded institutions, where researchers can afford hefty OA fees to publish in reputable journals, it will likely pose significant challenges for modestly funded scholars. Those relying on cOAlition S to finance OA publication in affected titles may need to consider publishing their findings in journals that fully embrace the principles of OA at no cost.

Those relying on cOAlition S to finance OA publication in affected titles may need to consider publishing their findings in journals that fully embrace the principles of OA at no cost.

Publishers are urged to prioritise the transition to OA to stay relevant in the ever-evolving research landscape. By doing this, they can strengthen their global reach, attract more readers, and increase the visibility and impact of the research they publish.

————————————————–

Science Europe held a conference on open science on 18 and 19 October 2022. The aim of the event was to discuss whether open science can become the norm in research and how an equitable transition to open science can be achieved. Key topics covered were:

• open science and society, including equity
• open access to all types of research outputs
• evolving research assessment and evaluation practices
• access to and use of open research infrastructures
• open science policies.

Presentations from the conference can be viewed here.

—————————————————–

Today marks the start of the 2021 International Open Access Week (25–31 October), a global, community-driven week of action organised by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), who aim to make ‘open’ the default for research and education.

The theme of the 2021 International Open Access Week is ‘It matters how we open knowledge: building structural equity’, which aligns with the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and highlights the need for ‘equitable participation for all producers and consumers of knowledge’.

As highlighted by the organisers:

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion must be consistently prioritised year-round and integrated into the fabric of the open community, from how our infrastructure is built to how we organise community discussions to the governance structures we use. International Open Access Week is an important opportunity to catalyse new conversations, create connections across and between communities that can facilitate this co-design, and advance progress to build more equitable foundations for opening knowledge—discussions and actions that need to be continued, year in and year out.”

Check out upcoming events here or follow the conversation at #OAWeek.

——————————————————–

Using openly available article metadata, the authors found that the uptake of OA grew steadily between 2015 and 2019, with the number of OA articles nearly doubling during this timeframe. However, as the total article output also grew, the relative share of OA publications increased from only 2.6% to 3.7%.

Although the number of hybrid open access articles has increased over time, its uptake has remained low.

The main drivers of hybrid OA in recent years include research institutions and funders that implemented policies and agreements with publishers that allow affiliated authors to publish free of charge. Jahn and colleagues reported that APCs were most often invoiced directly to the authors, albeit it is unclear whether these were covered through institutional OA funds, research grants, or personal savings. OA publication for a third of articles was facilitated through publishing agreements, underlining the impact of science policy in hybrid OA publishing.

Overall, this study highlights the complexity of hybrid OA publishing, which involves research funders, libraries, consortia, and authors. However, the authors focused solely on Elsevier’s journal portfolio, which may not be representative of the industry as a whole. The authors note that having more publishers provide publicly available data on OA uptake and APC invoicing would improve monitoring of the scholarly journal landscape over time. These steps may also help increase transparency and build trust in OA publishing.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

With Plan S coming into effect earlier this year, there has been much discussion regarding the potential benefits and challenges associated with open access. It has been suggested that open access articles are available to a larger audience than those published behind paywalls, leading to increased visibility, readership and impact. Citations are often used to measure these factors. However, a number of studies have failed to reach a consensus on whether an open access citation advantage exists.

Dr Isabel Basson and colleagues aimed to address this question by applying three measures of citation advantage:

• normalised citation score (NCS) – indicates if an article received the expected number of citations and corrects for subject area and publication year
• citedness – whether articles were cited by individuals other than the authors within 2 years of publication
• most frequently cited – the percentage of publications in the most frequently cited 1%, 5% and 10% of articles in each subject area.

The study, published in Scientometrics, used open access labels in the Web of Science (WoS) metadata to identify open access articles published in journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals and compared measures of citation advantage with subscription journal articles. Limiting the articles to English-language only to avoid a potentially confounding effect of language, the authors identified over 3.6 million articles of which 87.3% were published in subscription journals and 12.7% were published open access. The proportion of open access versus subscription journal articles varied considerably with individual subject areas.

Basson and colleagues reported results for the three measures of citation advantage:

• NCS –a relationship between NCS and access status was found in 76 (30%) of the 250 WoS subject areas investigated. An open access citation advantage was only seen in one subject area; in the remaining 75 subject areas subscription journal articles showed a citation advantage.
• Citedness – a relationship between citedness and access status was seen in fewer than half of subject areas, only 4 of which showed an open access citation advantage.
• Most frequent cited – the citation advantage favoured subscription journal articles rather than open access journal articles in the majority of subject areas.

Across all measures of citation advantage, only six of the 250 subject areas in WoS were reported to experience an open access citation advantage compared with subscription journal articles.

This study was one of the first to use open access labels in the WoS metadata to investigate citation advantage with access status. Overall, the authors conclude that access status accounts for little of the variability in the number of citations an article receives and suggest that other factors need to be considered when explaining variation in citation.

——————————————————–

——————————————————–

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly affected the medical communications industry, presenting unexpected challenges but also creating opportunities for change and innovation. Following his presentation at the 2021 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP), The Publication Plan talked to Chris Brooks, Publication Lead at AstraZeneca, to learn more about the impact of the pandemic on medical publications and to find out how he sees his role evolving in the future.

 In your role as Publication Lead, you liaise with multiple parties, such as internal medics, authors, medical affairs teams, and agencies. Each of these groups will likely have different motivations and priorities. How do you manage to ensure that all of these stakeholders work together as a cohesive team?

“It’s most certainly a challenge, particularly when you’re new to a team or, as happens so often, colleagues in the various teams you work with are changing. Building relationships with each of the various groups is imperative; it really helps to get to know how they work and what exactly it is that they need or expect from you, as well as who you need to approach to get what you need for publications. Bringing these groups together for regular publication team meetings is one of the simplest ways of keeping everyone informed of plans and progress whilst also giving them a platform to provide input themselves. In addition, I think it’s important that the publications function is included in meetings hosted by other groups. There have been numerous occasions during these meetings where I have heard important snippets of information about studies, results, plans or strategic updates that impact publications. Attending meetings also allows me to provide publication updates or gain clarity on important topics.”

Building relationships with each of the various groups is imperative.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised many challenges, leading to rapid adaptations across industries in response. In your experience, what have been the main impacts on the medical communications sector?

“I have two answers to this, purely based on the fact I have simultaneously worked on products both in and outside the COVID-19 space.

Firstly, with respect to COVID-19-specific activities, the pace of work has been incredible. I think everyone is abundantly aware of how quickly vaccines have been developed, tested, and approved, but what probably goes a little more unnoticed among the headlines is the fact that all of the other aspects have had to keep pace with the condensed clinical development timelines. Publications is just one tiny cog, and obviously an important one, in the enormous machine that develops a product and brings it to market. Just like everyone else in this effort, publications professionals have had to adapt to move at light speed. Publication timelines for developing and reviewing drafts have often been measured in hours rather than days, whilst timelines for developing manuscripts can be counted in days rather than weeks. These timelines have meant that the idea of submitting to a congress, something that has always been the norm, has been almost unthinkable for the delays it might cause to disseminating data.

The idea of submitting to a congress, something that has always been the norm, has been almost unthinkable for the delays it might cause to disseminating data.

The urgency required to share results has really brought preprints to the fore during the pandemic. For the most part, I think the use of preprints has been good, but it does come with challenges. They are an incredible resource for distributing important science in a rapid fashion, but we must remember that preprints have not undergone peer review when released.

Beyond COVID-19-related publications, I think the biggest impact of the pandemic has been the rise of the virtual congress. First and foremost, the societies organising the meetings have had to change their entire model, which is no small task, but the benefit is that a global audience can access the content so much more easily than they could before. For medical communications, it has presented its own fair share of challenges as we seek the best way to engage with a virtual audience across the many different platforms used by congresses.”

Have you faced any particular challenges or seen any positive outcomes or strategies emerge in response to the unprecedented situation caused by COVID-19?   

“The rapid shift to a virtual environment for congresses was an immediate challenge but I think it’s fair to say that we probably think of it as normal now. The level of innovation has been incredible and has shown what we can do when faced with a new challenge. It’s something that will have to continue to evolve because I think the virtual aspects of these congresses are here to stay.

The level of innovation has been incredible and has shown what we can do when faced with a new challenge.

With the speed at which COVID-19-related content has been delivered, I genuinely think we’ve learnt a lot about what is actually within the realm of possibility. However, this does come with the caveat that it’s not a pace that is sustainable over the long term.

By far and away the most significant positive impact I’ve experienced through the entire pandemic is an even keener awareness of the real, human impact of our work. What we’re doing – however small a part we play – is helping to improve and save lives every day, sometimes on a global scale.”

What we’re doing – however small a part we play – is helping to improve and save lives every day, sometimes on a global scale.

Over the last year, many medical congresses have taken place as virtual events allowing digital elements, while journals are increasingly offering enhanced digital features alongside articles. Which additional digital options do you think have the most value in ensuring that research has the widest reach and impact possible?

“From a congress perspective, it is hard to say as each one offers a vastly different package. There have been some great examples of infographic posters – some have downloadable content whereas others may have embedded video. There are so many possibilities now, depending on the congress. It’s difficult to say which option has the most value because each poster has its own story to tell, but the most basic option allowing the presenting author to record a presentation of their content for people to view on-demand is incredibly powerful – anything you can do on top of that is only going to add value.

Similarly, for journals, I think one of the simplest and most impactful things to offer is a short presentation of the results in some form of audio format.

For journals, I think one of the simplest and most impactful things to offer is a short presentation of the results in some form of audio format.

We know that there is so much competition for attention nowadays, so the option of being able to listen to an audio description of research findings offers a time-saving alternative for someone who would ordinarily have to sit down and read the full paper.”

For many authors, the journal impact factor continues to be a key consideration when selecting a target journal for their manuscript. What do you think are the most important aspects to look at when discussing journal options – is the impact factor a relevant metric?

 “It’s so hard to get away from it. I often joke that I’ve never attended a kick-off call where The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) or The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) hasn’t been mentioned, but in reality it’s not far from the truth. You can never overlook these options – they are fantastic journals and there is a good reason that it’s difficult to publish in them, especially as the likes of NEJM are offering such fantastic digital add-ons to some of their publications right now.

That said, if you don’t have ground-breaking, pivotal phase 3 data that the big journals are going to be excited to get hold of, I really think there is a need to think a little more carefully. This is especially true if it’s a strategically important publication for which you want maximum exposure. Publication timelines can come into it as well; aiming too high can increase the time it takes for an article to get accepted as a single rejection can delay publication by weeks or months. Sometimes, the lower impact factor journals are the ones that offer more options for publication enhancements such as video abstracts, voiceovers, and podcasts that can help the article gain greater attention.

In all, I think it’s a delicate balance and one that needs open discussion and agreement with the author group from the outset.”

Open access publishing is actively promoted by some pharma companies, and others mandate that all research they fund is published open access. How important do you think open access publishing is and if there is not already a policy in place at AstraZeneca, is this something that you envision being implemented in the future? 

“I’m a big fan of open access publishing, having started out many years ago working for a publisher. It’s been fantastic seeing all of the publishers making COVID-19 publications open access to further research efforts globally and facilitate the spread of peer reviewed articles to stave off misinformation.

It’s been fantastic seeing all of the publishers making COVID-19 publications open access to further research efforts globally and facilitate the spread of peer reviewed articles to stave off misinformation.

Whilst open access publication is not mandated at AstraZeneca currently, I can envisage circumstances where such a policy might be introduced one day. At the same time, it would be fantastic to see this approach taken for all publications across pharma regardless of the sponsor.”

There have been calls for information to be made more accessible to patients, for example via plain language summaries. Do you feel that plain language summaries should be considered for publication alongside all research articles and how achievable would this be in practice?

“Absolutely yes! I’ve made a concerted effort on the publications I’ve worked on over the past year to develop some form of plain language summary.

I’ve made a concerted effort on the publications I’ve worked on over the past year to develop some form of plain language summary.

Within AstraZeneca, one of our core values is to put patients first, but in publications we don’t see patients which means it can be very easy to focus on the immediate deliverable. That makes it important for us to remember those who actually took the time to participate in the studies that provide our data, and are those who are ultimately going to be impacted by our outputs.

We also need to consider that we’re in an age where a patient can simply type a few words into a search engine to access a mass of information about their condition. Ultimately, patients are going to be consumers of our content so we need to be mindful of that. Plain language summaries are a quick win right now, but I think this is an area that will evolve rapidly over time in an effort to make sure that patients are well informed with accurate and reliable information, should they choose to access it.”

 Finally, how do you see the role of a Publication Lead evolving in the future?

 “I was on a panel discussion recently and one of the comments I heard on this subject was that the role is becoming more attuned to what could be described as a ‘Scientific Communications Specialist’. It’s a concept that resonated with me quite strongly, and I interpret it to mean that the Publications Lead will come to have a greater influence on how science is communicated beyond the development of strategy and execution of publications.

There are a number of other things that will come to the fore over time as well. Previously, I mentioned the increasing need to consider the patient in our work and that there is potential for growth in this area. I think we’re all aware that there are competing demands on the time and attention our audiences have available to read our content. As such, we need to think carefully about how we adapt what we deliver to meet their needs. Digital aspects of publications are going to become more important over time in an effort to garner attention and make it easier to connect and engage with our content, but there has to be a balance because the traditional publication is still central to delivering the science.”

Chris Brooks is Publication Lead at AstraZeneca.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

Open access publishing has been gaining momentum over recent years. A survey by the Wiley Network last year concluded that open data is “here to stay”, with over half of respondents believing that “open data is more important now than it was 12 months ago”.

The Open Pharma collaboration between healthcare stakeholders launched a position statement in 2019, advocating for open access (OA) publishing of pharma-based research to improve transparency, advance scientific knowledge and improve patient care. One year on, during Open Access Week 2020, they released a set of educational slides ‘Open access. The new standard for pharma publications’ to help further their objectives.

The presentation provides an overview of what OA means for pharma, healthcare stakeholders and patients, highlighting features such as accessibility, equity, trust, scientific exchange and improved patient care. The authors note that paywalls may prevent research from being accessed by key groups, including patients and their families, patient advocates, policymakers, academic researchers, healthcare professionals, and journalists or other communications professionals. In addition to ensuring that research is made available to those who need it, other benefits of OA encompass increased citations, social media activity and downloads by healthcare professionals.

The group suggests several steps that pharma can take to drive change towards increased OA using the acronym BECAUSE:

• Build infrastructure to increase accessibility and discoverability.
• Engage with academics, prescribers, patients and the public.
• Campaign by telling publishers what you want and why it will benefit them.
• Advocate within the community for OA.
• Understand details to allow credible discussions.
• Standardise OA via publication policies.
• Educate others on the benefits of OA publishing whenever possible.

The authors acknowledge the possible barriers to OA and suggest ways in which these can be overcome:

• OA is not always available to industry-funded research: select a journal that permits commercially funded research to be published OA and choose the least restrictive OA license offered.
• Journal embargo periods: select a journal with no or minimal embargo period.
• Cost of OA fees: consider increasing OA budgets given the possible increased reach of articles.

The authors encourage pharma companies to mandate OA and to publish their research in a transparent, accessible, timely, efficient and sustainable manner. They conclude by asking readers to endorse the Open Pharma position statement or get involved with conversations @_OpenPharma. You can also find out more about OA in the pharma industry and Open Pharma’s progress by watching the MedComms Networking webinar entitled “Publishing open access saves lives”.

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

——————————————————–

Summary by Jo Chapman PhD from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsor, Aspire Scientific Ltd

You have followed the mandate from your funding body and published your prized research in an open access (OA) journal, assuming that it will be publicly available forever. But is long-term storage guaranteed? What happens if your OA journal disappears? Will your article be lost?

A report by M. Laakso, L. Matthias and N. Jahn posted on the on the arXiv preprint server in September 2020 found that 176 OA journals had disappeared since 2000. As noted by M. Shelomi, in his comment on the article, this number could have included predatory journals that have been de-listed by the bibliographic indexes analysed in the study. However, this does raise an interesting question around the preservation of OA journals and articles.

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) lists over 15,000 peer-reviewed OA journals. Digital preservation is one of the 7 criteria that must be fulfilled to receive the DOAJ seal, representing best practice in OA publishing. In addition, under Plan S, the open access initiative launched by the European consortium cOAlition S that came into effect in January, one of the mandatory publication venue requirements is deposition of content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving programme (such as CLOCKSS, Portico, or equivalent).

So, long-term storage is recognised as a condition of best OA practice. However, Laakso et al indicated that the limited funds of smaller journals may result in them opting for “lightweight technical solutions” that do not protect against technical instabilities.

The limited funds of smaller open access journals may result in them opting for “lightweight technical solutions” that do not protect against technical instabilities.

This has prompted a joint initiative by the DOAJ, the CLOCKSS Archive, Internet Archive, Keepers Registry/ISSN International Centre and Public Knowledge Project to improve OA journal preservation. The plan to provide an affordable archiving option, announced in November 2020, is specifically directed at small-scale, article processing charge-free OA journals, as these are the journals thought to be at risk of disappearing. The collaboration will also aim to raise awareness of the importance of OA journals joining a long-term preservation programme.

Hopefully, this initiative will ensure that all OA publications remain accessible for future generations and scholarly learnings will not just disappear.

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

——————————————————–

Summary by Jo Chapman PhD from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsor, Aspire Scientific Ltd