KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Legitimate open access and predatory journals are being conflated by some established actors, attempting to preserve legacy publishing.
• Understanding how to identify a true predatory journal is essential to maintaining scientific integrity.

With the rise in open access publishing, the presence of predatory journals has become a notable issue. However, in a Research Information article, Professor Emmanuel Andrès addresses labelling of legitimate open access journals as predatory by some in the publishing ecosystem.

Many accused journals have robust editorial standards and are indexed in respected databases like PubMed and DOAJ. So, why are they regarded as predatory? Prof. Andrès describes how some established actors have weaponised the term ‘predatory’ to exclude newcomers and protect the monopoly of legacy journals.

Open access versus exclusivity

Open access publishing can be affordable, accessible, and quick, enabling a broader range of individuals to publish, including those:

• new to research
• from non-elite universities or under-funded institutions
• from under-represented regions.

Historically, only a select few had the means to publish, largely due to the costs associated with legacy journals. Some may consider open access to result in a loss of publishing prestige. Prof. Andrès highlights that some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a “convenient label” to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity. On the contrary, Prof. Andrès says questioning the legitimacy of “all open access, fast-review, digitally native journals…is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford”.

“Some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a ‘convenient label’ to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity”

Where can we draw the line?

Prof. Andrès notes that true predatory journals remain a significant threat to academic publishing. To help detect them, Prof. Andrès highlights 6 key characteristics to look out for:

• no transparent fee structure
• no visible or citable articles that can be corrected when necessary
• no clear peer review and editorial policies
• not indexed in recognised databases
• not a member of COPE
• not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit checklist.

While ‘predatory’ warns the research community of fraudulent journals, terming any journal that challenges traditional publishing  as such can be just as damaging. Before dismissing an open access journal branded as predatory, Prof. Andrès urges us to consider: is this truly fraudulent or is it just an outsider?

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI tools can simplify data sharing through automating metadata creation and flagging missed requirements, ultimately enhancing open science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proved transformative in scientific research, from experimental design to assisting publishers and streamlining peer review processes. But can it unlock access to research data, code, and protocols frequently lost behind digital and institutional walls? In a recent London School of Economics Impact Blog article, Niki Scaplehorn and Henning Schoenenberger, both at Springer Nature, describe how generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.

Hurdles to data sharing

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point for open science, with global collaboration and rapid data sharing accelerating breakthroughs. Yet, Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that there are still considerable challenges to data sharing:

• a lack of consistent guidance and struggles to align with FAIR standards
• confusing and overlapping data sharing policies
• cultural barriers
• a lack of recognition for data sharing, code publication, and protocol documentation in academia.

Springer Nature saw compliance with data sharing requirements jump from 51% to 87% simply by asking authors to justify why they hadn’t deposited data prior to article acceptance. Scaling this approach, however, demands time and manpower. According to Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger, here, generative AI shows potential.

How can AI benefit data sharing?

The authors call for a “product” mindset that treats AI open science tools as services designed around researchers’ needs, rather than top-down mandates or administrative burdens. Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that AI can benefit data sharing through:

• automation of metadata creation
• flagging missing documentation and overlooked requirements
• suggesting best practices to improve workflows.

“Generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.”

The path forward

Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger believe that adopting AI tools designed around authors’ needs will streamline the burdensome aspects of data sharing. Ultimately, this will benefit researchers, policymakers, and everyone who relies on access to scientific information through lowering the barriers to open science.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Most open access repositories have evolved without sufficient means to communicate corrections or retractions.
• Metadata, such as DOIs, could be used to link all article versions and ensure corrections/retractions are clearly indicated to readers.

Open access repositories have an important role in disseminating scientific research. But what happens when a journal corrects or retracts a publication? A recent LSE Impact Blog article describes Frédérique Bordignon’s alarming discovery around how well this is captured by repositories.

Open repositories’ ‘blind spot’ to corrections and retractions

As Bordignon explains, most journals display up-to-date editorial notices alongside publications, although clarity can vary. On the other hand, open repositories do not necessarily pull through information on correction/retraction from published counterparts, and guidance from the Confederation of Open Access Repositories is lacking.

To examine the topic further, Bordignon’s team conducted a manually verified analysis of the world’s second largest institutional repository, HAL, by cross-checking its records against 24,430 corrected or retracted publications extracted from the Crossref x Retraction Watch database. Shockingly, they found that 91% of corrections/retractions were not indicated in the repository. Bordignon emphasises that this situation is not unique to HAL, but reflective of repositories across the world.

“91% of corrections/retractions were not indicated in the repository…this situation is…reflective of repositories across the world.”

How to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections

The solution? Bordignon points out that open repositories have a powerful opportunity to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections. However, rather than expecting repository managers to make individual version control decisions for every publication, Bordignon suggests that open repositories:

• create their own archives
• clearly display the editorial status of each article
• include a permanent, bidirectional link to the corrected published version
• enable automated updates through partnerships with Crossref x Retraction Watch, making use of metadata such as digital object identifiers
• incorporate platforms that detect and report retractions, such as PubMed, PubPeer, and Scite.

Bordignon provides a stark reminder that omission of corrections/retractions notices from open repositories risks that users may be learning, citing, or even propagating, flawed science; this can ultimately “erode public trust in science”. She urges open repositories to galvanise their position in the fight for research integrity, paving the way for a more streamlined archiving system that leaves readers in no doubt as to the reliability of the information they are accessing.

—————————————————

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

• Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is.
• The public’s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status.

Decades after their introduction, preprints have become a well-established concept within the scientific community. Recent years have seen some publishers move entirely to a reviewed preprint model and organisations such as the ICMJE release updated guidance for authors and editors alike. But what about the public? While those in medical publishing have been debating how best to maintain the speed of preprints while introducing further checks and balances, findings reported in preprints are increasingly being picked up by general news outlets. In an article for Science, Jeffrey Brainard delved into the latest research on public understanding of preprints to examine the risks and benefits of this trend.

Preprint ‘disclaimers’ are not enough

As highlighted by Brainard, two recent studies suggest that – even when preprints are clearly labelled as such – public understanding of preprint status, and its potential implications for reported research, remains low.

In one study, researchers gave over 1,700 US adults adapted versions of real news articles describing preprint-reported study results. After reading the articles, just 30% of participants were able to define ‘preprint’ in a way that showed some understanding of the term. When students were excluded, this proportion almost halved.

Only 17% of the general public understand what a preprint is.

Some versions of the news articles included a definition of the term preprint and an explanation that the findings had not been peer reviewed. Surprisingly, this had little effect on the understanding of the general public, although it did improve students’ ability to define preprints.

Context matters

Another study found that rather than a simple disclosure of preprint status, the wider framing of the article had the most impact on public perception of research credibility. Stronger, more definitive language makes findings appear more trustworthy, while ‘hedging’ language reduces trust.

How to improve public understanding of preprints?

These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works. Striking the right balance between speed and credibility of reporting seems likely to remain a key challenge for researchers and communicators.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ScholCommLab research shows that preprint servers are implementing more moderation measures as they attempt to improve preprint credibility.
• The authors warn against compromising the very attributes that make preprints invaluable, namely “speed, accessibility, and low barriers to entry”.

A recent article by the London School of Economics examined the challenges associated with enhancing preprint credibility. Research by ScholCommLab suggests that attempts to mitigate the dissemination of unchecked content through increased moderation may risk undermining the accessibility and speed that make preprints such a valuable method of sharing scientific information.

Preprint credibility concerns

The authors remind us of how preprints emerged as an essential tool for the rapid dissemination of new information throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While preprints were covered by the media at “an unprecedented rate” during that time, journalists are now being more selective about their use due to concerns around lack of peer review. Arguably, one of the most significant barriers to broader preprint adoption is the concept that they are of lesser quality and not as reliable as peer-reviewed articles. Critics also question their potential for circulating misinformation, which ultimately damages public trust in science.

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price.

Measures to improve preprint credibility

ScholCommLab’s findings from interviews with preprint server managers strongly refute any claims that servers allow the spread of unchecked information. Rather, they have “a strong sense of responsibility toward their communities, the scholarly record, and the public” and feel under pressure to screen preprints for flawed content that could be misleading. As such, servers are introducing more and more measures to address concerns over credibility, including:

• methods and data reporting badges
• community endorsements
• annotations
• aligning more closely with peer-reviewed journals’ editorial workflows.

The downsides of increased moderation

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price, such as by:

• restricting preprints to manuscripts or other formats congruent with journal peer review
• slowing the availability of new research
• reducing economic viability
• undermining the core strengths associated with preprints (ie, “openness, flexibility, and accessibility”)
• excluding “disadvantaged researchers”, such as those at the beginning of their career and/or at less established institutions.

The authors emphasise the importance of ensuring that preprints’ benefits are not diminished, and ask the community to consider the implications of gatekeeping methods, particularly in relation to future global health crises.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Data sharing is an essential component of open science. The EQUATOR executive are calling for its inclusion in reporting guidelines.

Mandatory data sharing has been gaining pace in recent years, with data underlying US federally funded research soon needing to be made available immediately on publication. Since its inception in 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, best known for hosting an online library of research reporting guidelines, has been an important advocate for improving the quality and transparency of medical research reporting. Now, in a recent article for The BMJ, the EQUATOR executive group explain how data sharing could be made standard practice as the next goal for open science.

Are current reporting guidelines sufficient?

The authors describe data sharing as a broad concept, from study registration to protocol availability, then data availability. While many stakeholders have emphasised trial registration and transparency, the requirement to discuss data sharing is missing from most reporting guidelines. A notable exception is a 2020 addition to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

“While many stakeholders have emphasised trial registration and transparency, the requirement to discuss data sharing is missing from most reporting guidelines.”

The EQUATOR executive encourage new or updated reporting guidelines to cover data sharing, to ensure authors:

• describe data sharing in protocol and results publications
• are encouraged to share data
• report on items linked to data sharing, like sharing of code and protocols.

What can authors do now?

While awaiting formal guidance on reporting data sharing, the EQUATOR executive suggest authors include the following in publications:

• data definition, collection, and management methods
• manuals or videos used in delivering the intervention
• the statistical analysis plan, including any coding
• any barriers to sharing data and other materials from the study.

The EQUATOR executive also encourage authors to adopt the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) and collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) principles when sharing data.

What’s next?

Beyond reporting guidelines, the authors signpost journal policies, funder expectations, and research assessment criteria as avenues to drive increased data sharing. They also point to data management and sharing plans, and suggest an opportunity for the EQUATOR Network to provide guidance on reporting these in a standardised way to further boost data sharing.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• OA publishing can place financial stress on authors, but avenues like publisher discounts can offset costs and improve equity.
• Immediate OA mandates for US federally funded research challenge publishing models and author’s control over their work.

Debate continues following the 2022 White House directive mandating immediate open access (OA) for all US federally funded research by the end of 2025. While OA publication has many virtues, including improving access to research and citation diversity, some issues are far from resolved.

Are OA fees prohibitive for authors?

Challenges for OA publication include inequitable opportunities and inconsistent benefits to visibility in the scientific space. In a recent Career Feature article in Nature, Nikki Forrester builds on reports of prohibitive article processing charges, particularly for authors in low- and middle-income countries. Forrester shares advice on offsetting OA costs from experienced researchers, such as:

• seeking support from co-authors, funders, or institutions
• taking advantage of scientific society grants (eg, in partnership with Research4Life)
• utilising publisher fee waivers and discounts, where available.

How will OA mandates affect publishers?

Scientific publishing models rely on payment from authors and subscriptions, and are threatened by immediate OA, notes Kathryn Palmer for Inside Higher Ed: the 2022 directive will require embargo-free deposition of publications in designated, publicly accessible repositories.

Further, some libraries have pushed for use of the federal purpose licence for federally funded work—allowing free publication and reproduction—to simplify processes for authors. US Congress and publishing associations are concerned this move would limit authors’ control, with broad OA licences permitting reproduction, modification, and commercialisation. Given the federal purpose licence is non-exclusive, author and library bodies have rebuffed some copyright-related concerns, simply seeing a “business model conflict” for publishers who held exclusive copyright for articles published under subscription models.

Given the federal purpose licence is non-exclusive, author and library bodies have rebuffed some copyright-related concerns, simply seeing a “business model conflict” for publishers.

In any case, Palmer notes that publishers will face difficult decisions as the OA landscape continues to shift.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Delta Think has identified a “small” but “significant” drop in the percentage of open access articles published in 2023, following an 8-year period of sustained growth.
• Delta Think suggest this loss in open access market share could reflect authors moving away from fully open access publishers, given perceived quality issues in a subset of journals.

Hot on the heels of our recent article on the real-terms cost of article processing charges, we look at another report from Delta Think: open access (OA) market share has dropped for the first time since 2016.

According to preliminary results from Delta Think’s 2024 publisher survey, the volume of publications has been rising since 2016, with high OA growth rates dominating the market up to 2023. Following a “post-COVID spike”, growth has now slowed back down to long-term trends, with OA losing market share.  

2023 saw a “small” but “significant” loss in OA market share

Despite previously predicting that OA articles would make up over half the monetisable scholarly output by 2023, Delta Think found that between 2022 and 2023:

• total article output grew by 3.4%
• OA article output grew by 2.1%
• OA’s output share fell from 49% to 48%.

The decrease is a small but notable shift from the long-term trend of incremental gains in OA market share each year. For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output, representing “a reversal of long-term observations”.

For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output.

Why has OA lost market share?

Delta Think suggest that alongside a post-COVID return to long-term trends, underlying challenges experienced by OA publishers could be to blame. Authors’ concerns about quality due to paper mills, the rise of special editions, and removal of impact factors may have contributed to a shift away from fully OA publishers, despite these issues affecting only a minority of journals. Uncertainty around funder OA mandates may have also played a role.

Will OA bounce back?

Delta Think caution that it is too early to say, but expect OA growth may pick up again in 2024, at slightly lower levels than in recent years. They note that fully OA publishers still represent a fifth of the market’s output, with well-established hybrid publishers continuing to see growth in OA. Given the benefits of OA, we look forward to seeing whether OA uptake bounces back in 2024.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A partnership between the EQUATOR Network and the Centre for Open Science (COS) could further the objectives of both organisations and raise awareness of best practices for open science.
• Anticipated activities include educational outreach for researchers and updated reporting guidelines.

The open science movement aims to improve the transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility of scientific research. In May this year, the EQUATOR Network and Center for Open Science (COS) announced a 3-year collaboration in the hopes of accelerating the uptake of open science practices in health research through a series of shared activities.

A shared mission

Since launching the open science framework in 2012 – a project management tool designed to streamline collaboration on, and dissemination of, scientific research – COS have been on a mission to facilitate and incentivise open research practices. This approach is highly complementary to EQUATOR’s objective to improve research quality and transparency, leading the organisations to collaborate on development of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines in 2015.

Nearly a decade later, the two are joining forces officially.

What can we expect?

Planning is ongoing, but several potential strategies are being explored:

• Educating researchers on processes such as writing and protocol creation, through a combination of outreach materials and toolkits
• Developing toolkits to guide reviewers in assessing data sharing practices and protocol deviation
• Increasing the visibility and use of existing tools, such as COS registration templates and EQUATOR reporting guidelines, through shared hosting
• Integrating practices such as protocol posting, data sharing, and study replication into existing EQUATOR reporting guidelines, where these are not yet included.

In particular, COS is keen to utilise EQUATOR’s existing systems to enhance research credibility by promoting the uptake of preregistration.

The potential impact

Open science practices are already included in CONSORT, but inclusion in further reporting guidelines could scale-up adoption substantially. In addition, the robustness of EQUATOR’s reporting standards could offer further structure and visibility to COS’ ongoing research.

Director of the EQUATOR Network, David Moher, has expressed his excitement around the partnership:

“Since its inception in 2006, the EQUATOR Network has worked hard to help improve comprehensive and transparent reporting of research. Collaborating with COS will help further achieve this objective.”

————————————————–