2026-04-11T07:04:26Z https://ese.arphahub.com/oai.php

10.3897/ese.2020.e50566 2020-02-18 ese

European Science Editing is in full open access now Bazdaric,Ksenija European Science Editing 46: e50566 I am excited to announce that with this volume European Science Editing (ESE) has shifted from the print to a fully digital open access version. The journal underwent several changes last year. First of all, our publisher, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) was generously offered – and accepted – a new ARPHA submission system (powered by PenSoft). Together with the EASE president Pippa Smart and EASE Council, we decided to transform ESE into a fully open access online journal. After several months of planning and re-thinking our strategy, a small working group (some members of the EASE Council and of ESE’s associate editors) prepared a proposal, the main idea of which was to divide the journal in two overlapping publications: European Science Editing and EASE Digest. The former will continue to publish original articles, reviews (formerly “essays”), viewpoints, and correspondence using the fully open access ARPHA submission system (flow publishing) but will drop the other sections, namely News notes, The editor’s bookshelf, This site I like, and EASE Forum Digest). These sections, which our readers consider particularly valuable, will now be published in EASE Digest with a few selected articles from ESE. The Digest will be available to EASE members only. As the proposal was accepted by the EASE Council in September 2019, the journal’s transformation is already under way. I wish to thank Silvia Maina (This site I like), Fiona Murphy (Book reviews), Elise Langdon-Neuner (EASE-Forum Digest), Anna Maria Rossi (The Editor’s bookshelf), and James Hartley and Denys Wheatley (members of the International Advisory Board) for the great work they have done and for their cooperation. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e50566 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e50566 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50566/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50566/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e50999 2020-02-18 ese

Editors should allow only significant digits Polderman,Arjan European Science Editing 46: e50999 “Out of 80 experiments, 45 (56.3%) had a favourable outcome.” If you read this sentence in a manuscript, would you want to edit the figures?I certainly would. There are too many digits in ‘56.3%’. The decimal 3 is meaningless; 56% is precise enough. If the number of favourable outcomes is 44, the percentage score is 55%; with 46 successes it is 58%. There is no uncertainty here.But what should we do when we are dealing with 237 out of 623? Both 237 and 238 result in a score of 38%. Wouldn’t it be wise to distinguish these outcomes by writing 38.0% and 38.2% respectively? Well, if such precision is important, we can simply present the absolute values. Absolute values are always accurate; percentages and fractions are only approximations.What might be the purpose of accurate percentages? I appreciate that percentage scores and fractions are better for comparisons than absolute values. With percentages I can see at a glance that 237/623 is more than 165/465 (38% and 35% respectively). Percentages are quick – and inaccurate, even with additional decimals. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e50999 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e50999 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50999/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50999/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e51002 2020-02-18 ese

Retractions of research papers by authors from the Arab region (1998-2018) Aldeen AlRyalat,Saif Azzam,Muayad Massad,Abdallah Alqatawneh,Dana Duplication fabrication plagiarism retraction research ethics scientific misconduct European Science Editing 46: e51002 Objective: To provide an overview of retractions of research papers contributed by authors from the Arab region.Method: Papers in which the first author was affiliated to an Arabian country were selected from the Retraction Watch database covering the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2018. The retrieved records were divided into nine categories based on the reasons for retraction.Results: The search yielded 322 retractions, and the most frequent reason for retraction was plagiarism (34.5%). The median time from publication to retraction was 14 (25%-75% percentile 5-30) months. The number of papers retracted each year as well as the number of papers published in a given year but subsequently retracted increased steadily over the 21 years. The proportion of retracted papers to the total number of published papers (0.17%) was higher than the global proportion and was the highest for Algeria (1%) and the lowest for Lebanon (0.03%). Of the countries within the Arab region, 12 out of 14 countries showed either plagiarism or duplication as the most common reason for retraction; however, the countries differed in terms of the number of retractions and the time from publishing to retraction.Conclusion: Plagiarism was the most common cause of retraction in the Arab countries. The increase in the number of papers retracted each year was probably because searches now extend farther in the past, whereas the increase in the number of papers published in a given year but subsequently retracted can be attributed to the overall increase in the number of papers published. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e51002 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51002 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51002/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51002/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e53230 2020-04-29 ese

ESE and EASE call for high standards of research and editing Bazdaric,Ksenija President,EASE COVID-19 editorial standards ethics pandemic publishing European Science Editing 46: e53230 The world has changed in the past few months in a way most of us could not imagine. The words “novel corona virus’’ (SARS-CoV-2), “COVID-19’’, “prevention”, “flattening the curve’’ and “hand washing’’ have become constant references within the daily news reports of mortality rates, the lack of equipment and possible therapies. The novel corona virus (SARS-CoV-2), which was first identified in the Chinese province of Hubei, has led to a pandemic and the whole scientific community, both in the public and privately-financed sector, is searching for an effective therapy as well as for a vaccine. All scientists (clinicians, epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts) are under great pressure to give advice on matters where there is still no evidence.We are used to reading fake news and non-filtered information in the media, but are we ready for similar occurrences in science journals? info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53230 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e53230 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53230/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53230/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e53477 2020-04-29 ese

Proposed universal framework for more user-friendly author instructions Ufnalska,Sylwia Terry,Alison scientific publishing instructions for authors user-friendly instructions scientific journal science editing scientific ethics European Science Editing 46: e53477 When preparing a scientific manuscript for submission to a journal, it is often time-consuming to find the journal's specific preferences, which can influence acceptance. We propose that journals include a simple table at the start of their instructions for authors, clearly displaying the essential information, e.g. word count, number of keywords, format of tables and figures. Such a table could be also easily updated as journal preferences change. Thanks to this, the submitted articles would be more likely to meet the basic requirements. We hope this initiative will save time for everyone involved in scientific publishing. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53477 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e53477 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53477/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53477/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e53192 2020-04-29 ese

Russia and post-Soviet countries compared: coverage of papers by Scopus and Web of Science, languages, and productivity of researchers Alimova,Natalia Brumshteyn,Yuri ethical guidelines in journal instructions multilingual journals post-Soviet countries European Science Editing 46: e53192 Objective: To analyse the productivity of post-Soviet countries, adjusted by population, in terms of research papers published and the proportions of those papers indexed by Scopus and the Web of Science.Methods: Relevant data on the journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science were analysed. Where required, data were also extracted from Russian Science Citation Index databases and websites of journals.Results: On average, the post-Soviet countries had 31 researchers per 10,000 people. The average numbers of publications per researcher in journals indexed by Scopus was 1.04 and the corresponding figure for the Web of Science was 0.87. In terms of the number of journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science, the leading countries were Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.Conclusion: Although the post-Soviet countries differed considerably in terms of bibliometric indices, the overall values were low. Main features of the journals were as follows: articles published in national languages – in Russian in many cases – and in English, articles mostly by authors within the region, and only a minority of foreigners as members of editorial boards. Thus most of the journals cannot be considered international. All the journals examined have websites in a national language and/or in English and invariably carry information on ethical practices, although such information is not given in a uniform format and varies from country to country. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53192 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e53192 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53192/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53192/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e52201 2020-04-29 ese

Dealing with difficult authors Smart,Pippa Communication conduct editors authors European Science Editing 46: e52201 There is considerable literature about the responsibilities of authors and editors in regard to ethics, integrity but there is little information on how to manage editor-author relationships when serious disagreements occur and the one party starts to behave in an unacceptable manner. This article is based on a recent experience and presents some thoughts and suggestions for editors on managing relationships between editors and the authors when authors start to behave badly. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e52201 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e52201 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52201/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52201/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e53890 2020-05-09 ese

Abuse of peer review process by sham authors Kumar,Sentil Sorooshian,Shahryar Publication peer review ethics authors European Science Editing 46: e53890 This is a short letter on how the peer review process of many journals is being abused by some sham authors. While it would be difficult for the journals to identify and eliminate manuscripts that are not submitted with a sincere intention to publish, the universities and learning institutions should develop code of ethics to prevent their staff from abusing the journal review process. Imposing submission fee would also act as a deterrent against unscrupulous submissions. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53890 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e53890 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53890/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53890/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e51112 2020-05-20 ese

United Kingdom’s contribution to European research output in biomedical sciences: 2008–2017 Tan,Raoul Sijbrands,Eric Biomedical research in EU Brexit research collaborations quantifying research contributions European Science Editing 46: e51112 Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU’s research in biomedical sciences.Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world.Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008–2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world’s top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71–2.88, p< 0.001). The UK’s share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union.Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008–2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU’s research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e51112 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51112 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51112/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51112/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e51839 2020-07-06 ese

Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour Tennant,Jon Peer review scholarly publishing Plan S quality control professional services European Science Editing 46: e51839 Commercial publishing houses continue to make unbounded profits while exploiting the free labour of researchers through peer review. If publishers are to be compensated financially for the value that they add within a capitalist system, then so should all others who add value, including reviewers. I propose that peer review should be included as a professional service by research institutes in their contracts with commercial publishers. This would help to recognize the value of peer review, and begin to shape it into a functional form of quality control. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e51839 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51839 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51839/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51839/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e52063 2020-07-10 ese

Simplify manuscript submission and optimize authors’ resources by eliminating formatting and cover letters Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. academic publishing desk rejection editorial vs author responsibility peer review quality control European Science Editing 46: e52063 Academics are under constant pressure to optimize their time. Formatting requirements imposed on academics by journals or editors during initial manuscript submission may waste precious time, energy, and financial resources, especially if a paper is desk-rejected, and even more so when there are multiple rejections. Formatting, which does not reflect a manuscript’s academic quality, should not be a requirement during initial submission, but only after a paper has passed peer review and been approved for publication. Several publishers offer a formatting-free option during initial submission, allowing academics to optimize their time and energy. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e52063 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e52063 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52063/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52063/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e54172 2020-08-24 ese

Building transparency and trust in industry-sponsored clinical research through open access publishing DeCastro,Barbara Geraci,Anna Trott,Jayme Snyder,G. Peter Dayaram,Yaswant Industry-sponsored research MPIP Open Access Transparency European Science Editing 46: e54172 A desire for both transparency in research and widespread access to the results of research has led to activism in support of open access publishing. Open access publishing, particularly publishing industry-sponsored research, can be complex. The overarching benefits of, and challenges to, open access are described, illustrated with the initiatives related to Medical Publishing Insights and Practices to help promote a better understanding of open access and its importance in ensuring transparency in industry-sponsored research. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e54172 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e54172 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54172/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54172/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e51051 2020-08-27 ese

The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI): the first three years (2016–2018) Gorin,Sergey V Koroleva,Anna M Gerasimov,Alexey N Voronov,Alexander A Academic journals Scopus Web of Science Russian Science Citation Index Russia European Science Editing 46: e51051 Objective: To observe changes in the number, form (print and online), and distribution (by academic disciplines) of Russian journals indexed in the first three years of the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI).Background: The globalization of science and the need to involve Russia in the international process of knowledge exchange have influenced the main directions of publication activity and interaction with the world scientific community. Methods: Statistical information freely available through the databases of the Scientific Electronic Library of Russia for January 2019 were compared with data from January 2016. Results: In 2016, the number of Russian journals included in the RSCI was 650; by 2019, the number had increased to 771, an increase of 18.6%. The number of journals with printed and online versions increased by 13.3% to reach 266 units. The number of Russian journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science databases increased during the period, as did the number of journals with both print and online versions.Conclusions: Journals from the RSCI database tend also to be added to Scopus or WoS databases and do not remain exclusively as part of the local database. Implementing the RSCI project had a positive impact on the full spectrum of Russian academic journals, which are increasingly committed to improving their work to continue to be part of RSCI or Scopus or WoS databases. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e51051 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51051 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51051/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51051/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e55817 2020-09-02 ese

An Author’s Editor Reads the “Instructions for Authors” Lang,Tom Journals authors instructions standards European Science Editing 46: e55817 I’ve been a medical writer and author’s editor for 45 years. I have read the instructions for authors in dozens of medical journals. I know what authors (and author’s editors) think of these instructions, at least among those who know that journals actually have instructions for authors. For almost as long, I’ve been a member of four professional societies concerned with scientific publishing, and I know a lot of editors-in-chief of medical journals. I appreciate their desire to have authors follow the instructions when preparing manuscripts, at least among those editors who remember that their journals have such instructions and insist, at least occasionally, that they be followed. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e55817 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e55817 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/55817/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/55817/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e57377 2020-09-17 ese

Suggestions for fortifying the discoverability of papers published in European Science Editing Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. CiteScore Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) open access transparency European Science Editing 46: e57377 European Science Editing (ESE), a platinum open access journal, is gaining recognition as one of the prime outlets for publishing-related topics, as evidenced by its 2019 rise into the second quarter of Scimago’s Journal Rankings and by its Scopus CiteScore of 1.3. However, the discoverability of knowledge and information in ESE is currently limited by the fact that manuscripts published before 2003 are not indexed, that none of the papers published before May 2016 have a DOI, and that not all information that appears on the html version of a paper appears on its PDF version, and vice versa. Finally, because ESE is already indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, all papers should be archived on that platform. Such improvements would undoubtedly take time and some resources, but if they could be achieved, the discoverability of the journal would clearly be fortified. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e57377 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e57377 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/57377/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/57377/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e58964 2020-10-20 ese

Correction to Pippa Smart’s viewpoint, “Dealing with difficult authors”. DOI:10.3897/ese.2020.e52201 Editing,European Science correction European Science Editing 46: e58964 In this article the author’s competing interests were not declared. This has been corrected in the online article, DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e52201. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Corrigendum text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e58964 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e58964 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/58964/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/58964/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 2020-10-27 ese

Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge Tennant,Jon Scholarly Publishing Databases Bibliometrics Research Assessment Epistemic hegemony European Science Editing 46: e51987 Both Web of Science and Scopus are critical components of the current research ecosystem, providing the basis for university and global rankings as well as for bibliometric research. However, both platforms are structurally biased against research produced in non-Western countries, non-English language research, and research from the arts, humanities, and social sciences. This viewpoint emphasizes the damage that these systematic inequities inflict upon global knowledge production systems and the need for research funders to unite to form a more globally representative, non-profit, community-controlled infrastructure for the global pool of research knowledge. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51987/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51987/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e57899 2020-11-11 ese

Response to Jaime A Teixeira da Silva's article, "Suggestions for fortifying the discoverability of papers published in European Science Editing" Lang,Tom European Science Editing 46: e57899 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e57899 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e57899 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/57899/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/57899/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e53691 2020-11-25 ese

The intentional search for meaning: developing technical editing skills Lang,Tom editing training technical editors technical writing education European Science Editing 46: e53691 The purpose of technical editing is to prepare specific information, for a specific medium, to help a specific audience, accomplish a specific goal. What defines technical editing is its purpose—to help readers act—not the scientific discipline in which it is found. Still, traditions of technical editing differ greatly by subject matter (nuclear physics, field biology), document types (scientific articles, computer user manuals), audiences (regulatory agencies, consumers), and specific publication conventions (writing instruction manuals, documenting experiments). Because technical editing developed in the physical sciences and engineering, the term often refers only to editing in those fields. However, whereas technical editors in industry often enter the profession with degrees in technical communications, editors in other scientific fields typically receive little or no professional training in editing. Accordingly, I describe here four techniques proven to be effective in training technical editors in any branch of science. A basic technique involves applying 12 specific and evidence-based ‘edits’ that improve comprehension. In an intermediate technique, ‘structured editing,’ described here for the first time, editors follow a structured process of analysing and revising a text by completing four sequential tasks. An advanced technique—shortening a 250-word abstract to 100 words without losing content—will develop critical thinking and sharpen language skills. Finally, I describe a collaborative technique based on ‘deliberate practice,’ in which a small group of editors discusses a text in detail, in long sessions, over extended periods, to develop a high degree of skill.   info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53691 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e53691 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53691/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53691/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e52497 2020-12-14 ese

My article has just been rejected! Iwaz,Jean Publication Medical writing Journal article Review. European Science Editing 46: e52497 Unfortunately, articles submitted to journals are rejected more frequently than is desirable. Journals themselves estimate that more than 60% of submitted articles are rejected without review (for top journals, the figure may even be 80%). Thus, whatever an article’s content or quality, an outright rejection should be expected right from the time of submission, and a reaction strategy defined beforehand. Each rejection should be carefully examined and fully understood before attempting any response. Here are some hints for beginners—or for edgy authors. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e52497 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e52497 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52497/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52497/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e56541 2020-12-15 ese

Rethinking editorial management and productivity in the COVID-19 pandemic Vuong,Quan-Hoang Ho,Manh-Toan COVID-19 pandemic loss of productivity editorial management European Science Editing 46: e56541 The indirect costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically extended work absenteeism and possible loss of productivity, are discussed focusing on the research community and its publishing. We suggest that the community should learn strategic and innovative decision-making as well as crisis management from business management to think ahead, especially about working effectively and being productive in times of crisis. The main challenges are:1) communicating scientific and credible information about the pandemic,2) focusing on being productive to provide some certainty, and3) adopting a new mindset and being open to unexpected opportunities. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e56541 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e56541 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/56541/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/56541/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e60083 2020-12-17 ese

Help scientists save time for research by minimizing editorial requirements for initial manuscript submission Ufnalska,Sylwia scientific communication manuscript submission process optimization Quick-Check Table author instructions European Association of Science Editors EASE Guidelines format-free initial submission European Science Editing 46: e60083 The new EASE campaign, aimed at further simplification of submission processes in science journals by means of an improved version 3.1 of the EASE Quick-Check Table, is now promoted worlwide. Volunteers  have already translated the table into Dutch, German, Korean, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish, and Turkish, while Bosnian and Polish translations will be finished soon. Volunteers who would like to translate the English version into other languages should first contact EASE Secretary to avoid duplication. We hope that our new campaign will help to increase the efficiency of scientific communication worldwide, which is crucial now. The initial extra effort of journal editors is worth it, as the optimization of manuscript submission is likely to minimize the number of manuscript revisions and may also aid in limiting the spread of COVID-19, thanks to faster publication of crucial research findings. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e60083 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e60083 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/60083/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/60083/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e54523 2020-12-24 ese

Exploring the relationship between journal indexing and article processing charges of journals published by MDPI, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Okagbue,Hilary Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. Anake,Timothy Citations CiteScore Impact Factor (IF) MDPI Scopus Web of Science European Science Editing 46: e54523 The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) is a prominent open access (OA) publisher that uses article processing charges (APCs) as its business model. Our objective was to determine the association between the APCs levied by MDPI journals and 1) their inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science databases or 2) their stature, as represented by their CiteScore (Elsevier’s Scopus) and Impact Factor (awarded by Clarivate Analytics). Among the 227 journals published by MDPI, 51 had both IF and CiteScore; 107, only a CiteScore; and 84, neither IF nor CiteScore. The charges levied by the journals varied widely, from 0 to CHF 2000 (Swiss francs), the most frequent figure (159 journals) being CHF 1000, or about €930. The amount of APCs was found to be correlated to IF (R² = 0.64; p <0.001; 107 journals) and also to CiteScore (R² = 0.619; p <0.001; 53 journals). The charges levied by journals that had both IF and CiteScore were significantly higher than those charged by journals with neither IF nor CiteScore (p <0.05). The charges were also correlated to the age of the journal: the more recently launched journals charged less than the older journals did. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2020 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e54523 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e54523 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54523/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54523/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e54417 2021-02-01 ese

Online course in conjunction with face-to-face workshops to improve writing skills leading towards more publications in peer reviewed journals Shoko,Amon Kimirei,Ismael Sekadende,Baraka Kishe,Mary Sailale,Innocent Academic and research institutions AuthorAID developing countries INASP research skills workshop writing skills European Science Editing 47: e54417 Background: Researchers in the developing countries often have inadequate scientific writing skills to publish their research in international peer reviewed journals.Objectives: To improve the research-and proposal-writing skills of researchers and to evaluate the impact of this intervention.Methods: An off-the-shelf online course (AuthorAID, developed by INASP) was embedded in the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute’s (TAFIRI) website and offered to the institute researchers in Tanzania. The 8-week course was followed by a 2-day face- to-face workshop that used the course material contextualized to local conditions, and the combination was repeated one more time.Results: A total of 47 participants completed the course and attended the workshop: 21 (54%) completed the course in 2016 and 26 (67%) in 2017. The number of papers published annually by TAFIRI staff more than tripled between 2016 and 2019 after the AuthorAID intervention, most of them (114, or 91%) by researchers who had undergone the training.Conclusion: Embedding and contextualizing proven learning materials, such as the AuthorAID online course, can be an economical and effective approach to improving the writing skills of scientists in developing countries. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e54417 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e54417 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54417/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/54417/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e52348 2021-02-05 ese

Avoiding predatory journals and publishers: a cross-sectional study Kinde,Alehegn Academic publishing legitimate journal predatory journal research visibility European Science Editing 47: e52348 Background: Predatory journals (PJs) are journals that receive and publish articles through unethical publishing practices. Due to the boom of PJs, researchers face a wide range of journals from which to choose. Non-peer reviewed and low-quality articles can ruin the trustworthiness of science and have a damaging impact on decision-makers.Objective: To assess the level of awareness among Ethiopian researchers of PJs and to improve the awareness level through training.Method: The participants were professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers from different disciplines. The study included 18 statements for participants to indicate their level of awareness on the Likert scale, questions on knowledge resources on PJs, and open-ended questions about ways of avoiding PJs. A one-day programme trained the participants in detecting and avoiding PJs.Results: 43 participants completed the pre-assessment online survey and 37 participants completed the post-assessment survey. Many researchers were unaware of PJs and found it somewhat difficult to differentiate PJs from legitimate journals. However, during the post-assessment, the awareness level improved and the participants’ rating of the task of differentiating PJs from legitimate journals changed from ‘Somewhat difficult’ to ‘Easy’.Conclusion: Many researchers were unaware of the potential distinctions between PJs and legitimate journals that are crucial to an appropriate journal for publishing. Especially low awareness was found on the journal impact factor, journal indexing services, and reputable publishers. Hence, before manuscript submission, authors ought to know and practise evaluating journals on the basis of the recommended criteria. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e52348 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e52348 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52348/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52348/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e62065 2021-02-22 ese

Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record: corrections and best practices at The Lancet group Cooper,Ashley Dwyer,Jessica correction error ethics publication European Science Editing 47: e62065 A transparent corrections process is essential to assist in the maintenance of public confidence in scientific and medical research. In the era of preprints, fast-paced peer review, and early-access publication, errors and oversights from both authors and editors might be more common. The swift and open correction of the public record requires the participation of authors, journal editors, and publishers, and in this Viewpoint we share The Lancet group’s best practices around errors and corrections. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e62065 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e62065 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/62065/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/62065/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e60203 2021-04-08 ese

Errata and retractions associated with research papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. Erfanmanesh,Mohammadamin correction index publishing integrity publishing record retractions retraction index Scopus Web of Science European Science Editing 47: e60203 Background: To examine the errata and retractions in total published output of Hungarian research and academia relative to that in 34 other European countries.Objective: To analyse the number of errata and retractions related to papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations compared to those by authors with affiliations in the 34 other countries.Methods: Errata and retractions retrieved from three databases, namely Retraction Watch, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus, were counted and sorted by country.Results: Scopus featured 7 retractions linked to Hungarian affiliations and WoS featured 10. Retraction Watch featured 26 such retractions, placing Hungary in 23rd position among the 35 countries arranged in descending order of the number of retractions. Of the 26 retractions from Hungary, 5 were in Elsevier journals and another 5 in Springer Nature; also, 8 of the 26 were associated with the University of Debrecen. When ranked for the number of errata notices for every 1000 published papers, Hungary was ranked 29th in WoS (2.54 notices per 1000 papers) and 26th in Scopus (2.3 notices per 1000 papers).Conclusions: The low numbers of Hungarian affiliations suggest that either research ethics are more stringently observed in Hungary or that publications from Hungarian research institutes, including papers in Hungarian – many Hungarian journals are indexed neither in WoS nor in Scopus – have not been scrutinized adequately through post-publication peer review. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e60203 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e60203 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/60203/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/60203/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e61658 2021-04-30 ese

Obstacles to health care research projects at the University of Jordan: a cross-sectional survey Farah,Randa Aldeen AlRyalat,Saif Aburumman,Wala'a Sakaji,Dana Alhusban,Muna Hamasha,Reem Alkhrissat,Majd Qablawi,Mohammad Alni’mat,Ayat clinical sciences obstacles difficulties in completing research causes of stagnation in research European Science Editing 47: e61658 Objective: To assess the obstacles faced by biomedical researchers in Jordan and the reasons behind the stagnation of health care research.Background: Health care research is essential for the advancement of medical care but faces obstacles that delay the completion of research projects, and the literature is still deficient, especially in developing countries.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of all academic staff of health care faculties at the University of Jordan who had been employed for five years or more and had at least one stagnant research project. Questionnaires were completed by the academic staff online using Google Forms after a face-to-face interview to explain the study process to them.Results: A total of 82 researchers with a mean age of 42.68 (±9.16) years were included most of whom (84.1%) had only one stagnant project. Of the 106 stagnant projects, 28.3% were in the basic sciences and 71.7% were in clinical research. Almost a third (29.5%) of the projects remained stagnant after reaching the publication stage. Most researchers (81.3%) identified lack of time and high workload as the most common personal barriers and 44.4% identified lack of funds and research incentives as the most common institutional barriers.Conclusions: Medical research is affected by different barriers including lack of time, high workload, lack of funds, and insufficient incentives for research. An institutional strategic plan is required to overcome those barriers and to improve medical research. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e61658 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e61658 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2020.e59855 2021-05-04 ese

The "ize" have it - reflections on spelling and its rules Wheatley,Denys Consistency editing ise ize UK English US English spelling European Science Editing 47: e59855 A brief discussion is presented of the use of "ize" rather than "ise" in most current day journals. The need for editors and authors to be consistent in their spelling remains an issue. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e59855 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e59855 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59855/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59855/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e51999 2021-05-21 ese

Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal BALYAKINA,Evgueniya Kriventsova,Ludmila academic publishing content analysis peer review rejection rate Russian academic journals European Science Editing 47: e51999  Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited.Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal. Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics.Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations.Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e51999 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e51999 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51999/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/51999/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e63663 2021-06-10 ese

International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences Pourret,Olivier Hedding,David W. Ibarra,Daniel Enrique Irawan,Dasapta Erwin Liu,Haiyan Tennant,Jon article processing charges geoscience open science predatory journals preprints repositories European Science Editing 47: e63663 Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing.Objectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences.Methods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018.Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200.Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e63663 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e63663 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e62836 2021-06-17 ese

Factors influencing acceptance or rejection by Iranian medical researchers of invitations to peer review Talei,Maryam Handjani,Farhad Astaneh,Behrooz Askarian,Mehrdad Jafari,Peyman biomedical journals incentives for reviewers peer review process scholarly publishing in Iran time taken for review European Science Editing 47: e62836 Background: Peer review is a necessary but costly and time-consuming process to identify good-quality and methodologically sound articles and improve them before publication. Finding good peer reviewers is often difficult.Objective: To identify the incentives that make Iranian biomedical researchers accept invitations to be a peer reviewer and factors that affect these incentives.Methods: Twelve reviewers selected at random from the reviewers pool of each of 26 biomedical journals published from Fars province, Iran, were surveyed using a questionnaire that we had developed and tested in a pilot study of 30 reviewers (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779). The data included the reviewers’ demographics, history of their reviews, and choice of 11 reasons each for accepting or declining the invitation to review.Results: A total of 233 reviewers completed the questionnaire. The most important reasons for accepting the invitation to review were the journal’s practice to publish the names of the reviewers alongside the article they had reviewed, acknowledgement by the journals by publishing the names of reviewers once a year, free access to journals’ content, and lower publication charges as authors. The most common reasons to decline the invitation were lack of time, busy schedules, and lack of sufficient incentive to review.Conclusion: Acknowledgement by the journal, offering to publish the names of reviewers alongside the articles they had reviewed, and monetary rewards will be effective incentives for biomedical researchers in Iran to serve as peer reviewers. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e62836 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e62836 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/62836/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/62836/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e59032 2021-07-08 ese

The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia Irawan,Dasapta Erwin Abraham,Juneman Tennant,Jon Pourret,Olivier bibliometrics database bias earth sciences indexing of research papers national databases research evaluation research impact European Science Editing 47: e59032 Background: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases.Objectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences.Methods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design.Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting.Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e59032 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e59032 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e68868 2021-07-08 ese

Giving editors and institutions some CLUEs about research integrity cases Wager,Elizabeth Kleinert,Sabine CLUE editors institution journals recommendations research integrity scientific misconduct European Science Editing 47: e68868 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e68868 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e68868 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/68868/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/68868/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e67829 2021-08-26 ese

Rethinking the use of the term ‘Global South’ in academic publishing Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. cultural insensitivity discrimination Global South mass mentality open access European Science Editing 47: e67829 ‘Global South’, a term frequently used on websites and in papers related to academic and ‘predatory’ publishing, may represent a form of unscholarly discrimination. Arguments are put forward as to why the current use of this term is geographically meaningless, since it implies countries in the southern hemisphere, whereas many of the entities in publishing that are referred to as being part of the Global South are in fact either on the equator or in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, academics, in writing about academic publishing, should cease using this broad, culturally insensitive, and geographically inaccurate term. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e67829 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e67829 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/67829/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/67829/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e71728 2021-09-13 ese

Compliance with best practice guidelines on publication ethics: Where does Pharmactuel stand? A case study Hamel,Christine Méthot,Julie Mallet,Louise Compliance COPE ICMJE editorial policies instructions to authors Pharmactuel publication ethics European Science Editing 47: e71728 Background: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are two internationally recognised organisations in the field of publication ethics. Guidelines from these two organisations were updated in 2018.Objectives: To assess the extent to which the journal Pharmactuel is compliant with the guidelines on publication ethics updated by ICMJE and COPE in 2018 and, where the journal is found wanting, to take the necessary steps to make it compliant.Methods: A list of updated criteria – 56 by ICMJE and 22 by COPE – was compiled. In January 2020, compliance with each of these criteria was evaluated by the editor-in-chief and validated by all six associate editors. The evaluation was followed by an action plan to improve compliance, and the evaluation was repeated in November 2020.Results: Of the 56 ICMJE criteria, Pharmactuel was fully compliant with 31 and partly compliant with 10 criteria (a compliance rate of 73%, taking the two together). The corresponding figures for the 22 COPE criteria were 17, 3, and 91%. By modifying its editorial policies, training its associate editors, and creating appropriate guidelines for its editorial board and editors, Pharmactuel achieved almost 100% compliance by the end of 2020.Conclusions: Pharmactuel has been fully compliant with ICMJE and COPE recommendations since January 2021. Minor modifications to Pharmactuel’s publication process have enabled the editorial team to ensure that the journal continues to be almost totally compliant with COPE and ICMJE guidelines and to uphold its high ethical standards. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e71728 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e71728 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/71728/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/71728/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e63780 2021-09-21 ese

The ABC of linear regression analysis: What every author and editor should know Bazdaric,Ksenija Sverko,Dina Salaric,Ivan Martinovic,Anna Lucijanic,Marko Causal language linear models prediction regression analysis reporting residuals statistics European Science Editing 47: e63780 Regression analysis is a widely used statistical technique to build a model from a set of data on two or more variables. Linear regression is based on linear correlation, and assumes that change in one variable is accompanied by a proportional change in another variable. Simple linear regression, or bivariate regression, is used for predicting the value of one variable from another variable (predictor); however, multiple linear regression, which enables us to analyse more than one predictor or variable, is more commonly used. This paper explains both simple and multiple linear regressions illustrated with an example of analysis and also discusses some common errors in presenting the results of regression, including inappropriate titles, causal language, inappropriate conclusions, and misinterpretation. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e63780 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e63780 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63780/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63780/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e75635 2021-10-19 ese

Climate change and health: the role of journals and editors Marsh,Joan Bazdaric,Ksenija climate change EASE EASE manifesto editors journals sustainability European Science Editing 47: e75635 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e75635 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e75635 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75635/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75635/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e75625 2021-10-19 ese

Environmental sustainability and scientific publishing: EASE manifesto Mertens,Stephan Brown,Alastair climate changes EASE editors environment sustainability European Science Editing 47: e75625 Human impacts on the Earth have become so pervasive as to drive global scale changes leading some scientists to propose a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. A name which reflects the huge and sweeping changes human activities have caused to the Earth. Furthermore, these rapidly expanding and accelerating activities threaten to push aspects of the Earth system beyond  the relatively stable and safe space in which the entirety of human history occurred, the Holocene. This safe operating space is characterised by a set of nine planetary boundaries1 within which humanity should be able to continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. These include: climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows and freshwater use. Crossing these boundaries risks generating large-scale, rapid or irreversible environmental changes.Reducing the environmental impact of our activities in order to keep within a safe operating space for humanity and the linked goal of providing a basic social foundation for everyone requires global actions. Every individual, company, institution and organisation, whether large or small, public or private, needs to contribute – ‘think global, act local’. Scientific publishing as a key player in discussing and disseminating research on climate heating and the biodiversity crisis has transformed from print to digital journals and e-books over recent decades but we must do more.The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of individuals and associations engaged in science communication and editing. As such, EASE can help and support its members to engage in different ways to achieve and communicate efforts to reduce our environmental footprints for example by becoming carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) irrespective of the type of organisation they work in.Below are some suggestions for how editors can take steps to reduce their environmental footprint in their own particular circumstances and thereby contribute to the overall effort to reduce environmental damages. Not all suggestions will be relevant to everyone and structural or organisational change will have a greater impact than individual actions, but together we can make a difference. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e75625 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e75625 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75625/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75625/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e72187 2021-10-21 ese

The contribution of authors from low- and middle-income countries to top-tier mental health journals El Khoury,Joseph Kanj,Riwa Adam,Lynn Kanj,Rama Hajaig,Abdul Jalil Haddad,Firas El Helou,Rita Christie Affiliations of authors bibliometric analysis of health journals inter-country collaboration in research European Science Editing 47: e72187 Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been consistently under-represented in the pool of contributors to academic journals on health. For the past two decades, prominent voices within the psychiatric profession have called for better representation of LMICs in the interest of advancing the understanding of mental health globally and benefiting health systems in these countries.Objective: To investigate the absolute and relative representation of authors affiliated to institutes from LMICs in the most influential journals on mental health in 2019.Method: Thirty top-ranking journals on mental health based on Scimago Journal Rank were selected, and all papers other than correspondence and letters to the editor published in those journals in 2019 were examined to extract the country of affiliation of each of their authors and their position (corresponding author, first author, second author).Results: Of the 4022 articles examined, 3720 articles (92.5%) were written exclusively by authors from high-income countries (HICs); 302 (7.5%) featured one or more authors from a LMIC along with those from HICs; 91 (2.2%) featured authors only from one LMIC; and only 3 (0.07%) featured authors from more than one LMICs but without any co-author from a HIC. The ratio of articles by contributors from LMICs to all the articles published in 2019 in a given journal ranged from 0% to 19%. Of 1855 individual contributors from 45 LMICs, 1050 (56%) were from China.Conclusion: Despite the growth of the global health movement and frequent calls for academic inclusivity, LMICs were significantly under-represented among the authors of papers published in top-ranking journals on mental health in 2019. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e72187 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e72187 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e75834 2021-11-23 ese

Let’s publish full-text scientific articles in HTML, not just PDF Ansorge,Libor publication accessibility full texts European Science Editing 47: e75834 The digital age has enabled unprecedented opportunities in the dissemination of information. Thanks to the Internet, research results are available to virtually anyone in the world. Thanks to platforms such as the Open Journal System, a scientific journal can be published by practically anyone with minimal demands on resources, and even a relatively small editorial team can focus more on the quality of published articles than on the editorial process itself. Nevertheless, publishing procedures have recently been adopted which do not allow parts of readers to have seamless access to the content of scientific articles. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e75834 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e75834 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75834/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/75834/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e69596 2021-12-10 ese

Barriers to writing research papers and getting them published, as perceived by Turkish physicians – a cross sectional study Sezer Yamanel,Rabia Gönül Kumru,Pınar Kayataş Eser,Semra Celayir,Ayşenur academic writing language barriers English as a second language medical research physicians as researchers barriers to publishing research papers European Science Editing 47: e69596 Background: Many physicians in Turkey are both clinicians and researchers, and publishing their research contributes to better patient care as well as to career advancement.Objective: To identify the barriers faced by Turkish physicians to writing research papers and getting them published.Methods: Respondents were asked, through eight multiple-choice questions, about the difficulties they faced in writing research papers and in getting them published in journals. We also searched published literature for accounts of similar difficulties and answers to the question ‘What is your purpose in writing scientific publications?’Results: A total of 18% (155 of 871) of physicians completed the questionnaire. About the difficulties faced in writing, 82 out of the 155 participants, or 57%, reported problems in finding financial support; 58 (40%), in obtaining required permissions and clearances; 65 (45%), in acquiring relevant skills, especially those related to data analysis or statistics; and 42 (29%), in language-related skills. About the difficulties in getting their papers published in journals, 85 (60%) said that they tried to overcome the difficulties by searching for appropriate solutions on the internet; 66 (47%) sought help from experienced colleagues; and 47 (33%) needed professional help in English translation and editing. Need for financial support was reported by a significantly (p = 0.04) larger proportion of associate professors or full professors (69%) than that of residents (47%) and fellows (45%).Conclusion: The main problems that Turkish physicians face in preparing scientific manuscripts were lack of  financial  support, inadequate knowledge of data analysis and statistics, and the paperwork involved in obtaining required approvals and permissions—problems that were common to the departments of internal medicine and of surgery. The primary motivation for writing and publishing was career advancement, especially through promotion to a higher academic rank. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e69596 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e69596 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/69596/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/69596/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e76284 2021-12-13 ese

Peer review: economy, identity, diversity Clark,Jocalyn Jagsi,Reshma Peer review Health equity Gender equality European Science Editing 47: e76284 To meet the needs of their wide-ranging audiences, journals and editors must publish science that reflects the diversity of the communities they serve. And yet we collectively neglect the importance of optimizing the diversity of peer reviewers. This viewpoint explores the vital economy and identity of peer reviewers, and how these can help improve diversity in peer review. Economy, because this form of labour props up a publishing system, doling out the main form of currency within academia, and identity, because what peer reviewers contribute extends beyond their disciplinary expertise to their sense of self and what they represent: the backgrounds, values, and views they bring to the work of reviewing scientific papers. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e76284 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e76284 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76284/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76284/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2021.e64274 2021-12-13 ese

Top 50 medical journals from Balkan countries: A bibliometric analysis, 2000–2020 Aydoğan,Okan Kayan,Gizem Balkan countries bibliometric analysis Journal Impact Factor medical journals Science Citation Index Expanded European Science Editing 47: e64274 Background: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) is one of the most important indexes that medical journals aspire to be covered by. Currently, SCIE indexes 14,840 peer-reviewed journals across 178 disciplines. Among these journals are 3445 medical journals, divided into more than 40 subject categories.Objectives: To reveal the impact and contribution of medical journals from Balkan countries through the Journal Impact Factor of those journals, the number of articles published by them, and the number of times those articles have been cited.Methods: Balkan countries are countries that fall or fully or partly within the Balkan peninsula. All medical journals from those countries listed in the SCIE were ranked based on cumulative citations between 2000 and 2020. Among them, the top 50 journals in terms of cumulative citations were chosen for the study, which analysed the data on 129,259 research articles and reviews that covered 27 different subject categories within the broad field of medicine. The countries were Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and TurkeyResults: The top 50 journals included those published from eight Balkan countries. Turkey had the most journals (21) in the Web of Science (WoS) and Greece had 13 but, when ranked in terms of the number of journals in WoS per million people, Croatia topped the list, with 1.22 journals per million of its population, followed by Greece (1.21 journals). The top-cited journals were Anticancer Research (206,226 citations), International Journal of Oncology (171,654), Oncology Reports (157,467), Molecular Medicine Reports (82,009), and Oncology Letters (69,161). Oncology was the most cited subject category and Croatia, the country with maximum interaction with other Balkan countries, that is, papers in Croatian journals cited journals published from the maximum number of Balkan counties.Conclusion: The study provides insights into the last two decades of progress in academic publishing and in the performances of medical journals published from Balkan countries. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2021 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e64274 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e64274 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/64274/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/64274/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e76113 2022-03-04 ese

The new ICMJE disclosure form Baethge,Christopher COI conflict of interest disclosure form ICMJE European Science Editing 48: e76113 Effective 30 June 2021, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, has updated its disclosure form. It is now public on ICMJE’s web page, and member journals have started using the form. In the ICMJE, editors of general medical journals discuss and adopt proposals to address important problems in medical publishing, such as authorship definition, trial registration, data sharing, and the declaration of conflict of interest. All of ICMJE’s proposals are summarized in the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”, a 19-page document containing advice on a wide variety of topics related to manuscript writing and publishing. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e76113 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e76113 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76113/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76113/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e79945 2022-03-16 ese

Citation styles of references: a weakness of academic publishing Rozell,Daniel Citations academic publishing European Science Editing 48: e79945 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e79945 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e79945 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/79945/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/79945/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e77781 2022-04-04 ese

Challenges of qualitative data sharing in social sciences Vuckovic Juros,Tanja Accountability open science qualitative research sensitive data transparency European Science Editing 48: e77781 Open science offers hope for new accountability and transparency in social sciences. Nevertheless, it still fails to fully consider the complexities of qualitative research, as exemplified by a reflection on sensitive qualitative data sharing. As a result, the developing patterns of rewards and sanctions promoting open science raise concern that quantitative research, whose “replication crisis” brought the open science movement to life, will benefit from “good science” re-evaluations at the expense of other research epistemologies, despite the necessity to define accountability and transparency in social sciences more widely and not to conflate those with either reproducibility or data sharing. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e77781 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e77781 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/77781/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/77781/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e84992 2022-04-14 ese

European Association of Science Editors statement in support of Ukraine Nicholas,Duncan invasion of Ukraine Russian invasion statement Ukraine Russia invasion war European Science Editing 48: e84992 The European Association of Science Editors statement on the invasion of Ukraine includes details of support for the Association's Ukrainian members and all peoples of Ukraine, condemnation of the Russian invasion, and advocacy for research and scholarly publishing industry initiatives to support continued academic activity. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e84992 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e84992 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/84992/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/84992/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e83864 2022-04-15 ese

Academia's challenges in the face of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. economic sanctions Euromaidan European Union humanitarian aid socio-political conflict European Science Editing 48: e83864 The European Union (EU), and Europe more widely, is facing its largest socio-political threat in a generation. As the political events between Russia and Ukraine, which have been festering since at least 2014, have now turned into a war, with many major Western and EU companies barring business with Russia, and with most Western Governments imposing increasingly stiffer sanctions on Russia, where do non-Russian academic publishers stand? This commentary takes a brief look at what we know, and where we stand. A humanitarian response is needed, but so too is a decision regarding treatment of Russian and Ukrainian academics. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e83864 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e83864 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83864/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83864/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e81677 2022-04-29 ese

A model text recycling policy for publishers Moskovitz,Cary Pemberton,Michael Hall,Susanne Publication ethics self-plagiarism text recycling writing European Science Editing 48: e81677 Because science advances incrementally, scientists often need to repeat material included in their prior work when composing new texts. Such “text recycling” is a common but complex writing practice, so authors and editors need clear and consistent guidance about what constitutes appropriate practice. Unfortunately, publishers’ policies on text recycling to date have been incomplete, unclear, and sometimes internally inconsistent. Building on 4 years of research on text recycling in scientific writing, the Text Recycling Research Project has developed a model text recycling policy that should be widely applicable for research publications in scientific fields. This article lays out the challenges text recycling poses for editors and authors, describes key factors that were addressed in developing the policy, and explains the policy’s main features. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e81677 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e81677 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/81677/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/81677/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e79315 2022-05-26 ese

Needs of early-career professionals in STM: Findings from two surveys Foley,Erin Moriarty,Rachel Martin,Kerys Early-career publishers science publishing survey of publishing industry European Science Editing 48: e79315 Background: The Early Career Publishers Committee (ECPC) of the STM Association (the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers)’s Early Career Publishers Committee (ECPC) aims to engage, and provide tools and resources for, early-career publishers (ECPs) and professionals. The committee believes it is important to survey the community regularly to understand the background, needs, and concerns of its members to better achieve the committee’s goals.Objectives: Early-career professionals were surveyed in 2014 and 2020: the first survey was undertaken to get a baseline understanding of the community and to guide the newly formed ECPC whereas the second not only sought to review some aspects of the first survey but also to identify and explore ways to improve engagement and support through new or revised survey questions.Methods: The two surveys were conducted online through the ECPC mailing list and social networks. The surveys were voluntary, with the option to skip some questions, and responses – some in the form of a rating scale – were collected anonymously. Each survey remained open for over a month to maximize responses, but neither was pretested. Some questions in the first survey were revised in the second in the light of learnings from the first survey.Results: Most of respondents were women, 25–54 years old, from the UK or the US, with higher degrees, and working in editorial roles. In the second survey, many respondents were interested in developing their career either in their currentrole or in a different one, and nearly half were actively seeking a new role. Over half said that finding the right role was a challenge. Many had never participated in a publishing-related mentoring scheme, and most had not heard of the STM mentoring scheme before.Conclusions: More tools, resources, and outreach for entry-level and younger industry members, for those from countries outside the UK and US, and for those seeking to develop their careers may be useful in the future. The mentoring scheme could be publicized more prominently to drive engagement. A new survey will be needed in the next 2–3 years, given the potential impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the number of respondents in the second (2020) survey and their motivation. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e79315 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e79315 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/79315/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/79315/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e71240 2022-06-02 ese

Compliance of abstracts of randomized control trials with CONSORT guidelines: A case study of Balkan journals Sut,Necdet Koçak,Zafer Korkmaz,Selcuk Uzun,Cem Abstract CONSORT editors guidelines randomized controlled trial reporting quality European Science Editing 48: e71240 Background: Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not compliant with the CONSORT checklist as much as they should.Objective: To assess the quality, in terms of the level to which they are compliant with the CONSORT checklist, of abstracts of RCTs published in general medical journals in the Balkan region.Methods: Two observers assessed the abstracts of RCTs published in five general medical journals of the Balkan region between 2012 and 2018 to determine the level to which the abstracts were compliant with the 16-item CONSORT abstracts checklist.Results: Of the 183 studies that were identified for evaluation, 124 (67.8%) were excluded from the evaluation. The average compliance level was 44.5% (95%   CI: 41.9%–47.1%), the lowest being that for randomization (1.7%), funding (1.7%),numbers analysed (11.0%), blinding (13.6%), and trial registration (18.6%). However, the compliance level was very high for conclusions (99.2%), objectives (96.6%), interventions (95.8%), and primary outcomes (83.9%). The length of the abstract (word count) and the level of compliance were positively correlated (rs = 0.43; p = 0.001). Abstracts of trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT in their publication policies were more compliant than those published in other journals (47.5 ± 10.4 versus 40.8 ± 8.0, p = 0.024).Conclusion: The overall level of compliance with the CONSORT checklist was below 50%. To improve the quality of abstracts of RCTs, authors should be encouraged to use the CONSORT checklist, and editors should check compliance with the CONSORT guidelines as part the publishing workflow. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e71240 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e71240 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/71240/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/71240/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e83943 2022-06-03 ese

Style-free references rather than standardized citation styles Ansorge,Libor citation style format-free opinion European Science Editing 48: e83943 In this communication, the calls for standardizing citation styles are discussed. Instead of standardizing citation style, I consider efforts to introduce style-free references to be more beneficial to authors. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e83943 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e83943 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83943/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83943/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e73949 2022-06-09 ese

CiteScores of cardiology and cardiovascular journals indexed in Scopus in 2019: A bibliometric analysis zolfaghari,Zahra Shokrpour,Nasrin Ghahramani,Leila Sarveravan,Pooneh Abstracting and indexing cardiology journals CiteScore Journal Impact Factor H-Index PubMed Scimago Journal Rank Scopus European Science Editing 48: e73949 Background: Citations are considered a measure of the scientific impact of research articles. CiteScore is a standard metric, based on the Scopus database, of the number of times articles in a given journal were cited during a given period relative to the number of articles published by that journal during that period.Objectives: To investigate the factors associated with CiteScores of journals on cardiology and cardiovascular diseases and indexed in Scopus in 2019.Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study examined 338 journals to analyse the correlation between CiteScore and such other variables and parameters as coverage by indexing services (databases), type of access, language, type of published articles, age of the journal (year of establishment), H-Index, Scimago Journal Rank, and the quartile of the journal.Results: CiteScore of a journal was positively correlated to the following variables or parameters: coverage by PubMed, Web  of Science, and EMBASE (p < 0.001), articles    in English (p < 0.001), age of the journal (p = 0.001), publishing review articles (p =  0.23), H-Index (p < 0.001), and Scimago Journal Rank (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Coverage of a journal in international databases, especially in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, is critical to increasing its visibility. Publishing review articles, which tend to be cited more often because they serve as comprehensive sources of information, can increase the CiteScore of a journal. Also, publishing more articles in English contributes to the number of times articles in a journal are cited.  info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e73949 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e73949 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/73949/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/73949/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e80709 2022-07-05 ese

Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study Wang,Roxanna Roberts,Robin Fredenburgh,James Cushman,Mary Weitz,Jeffrey Composition of editorial boards gender bias in medical publishing medical publishing European Science Editing 48: e80709 Background and objective: There is persistent men-dominated gender disparity in medical academia. Predominance of men in the editorial makeup of medical journals might contribute to this inequity. This retrospective study (2014–2019)sought to evaluate gender representation in reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial boards in 15 leading medical journals from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Methods: We surveyed lists of reviewers, editors, and editorial board members from seven journals of internal medicine, a specialty dominated by men; three journals  of obstetrics and gynaecology and two of paediatrics, specialties dominated by women; and three journals of psychiatry, a gender-balanced specialty. Information from publicly available resources was used to infer gender, and the percentages of women were calculated. Trends over time were characterized by changes in these percentages from year to year through the linear regression line fitted to the data for each journal.Results: Journals of women-dominated specialties had significantly higher proportions of women reviewers than those of men-dominated or gender-balanced specialties, with mean percentages (95% confidence interval) of 45.8% (40.5%–51.1%), 28.0% (22.3%–33.7%), and 33.8% (27.6%–40.1%), respectively (p <0.001). The proportion of women editors and editorial board members showed no statistically significant differences across the three specialties, and the percentage of women reviewers, editors, and editorial board members increased only slightly over time.Conclusion: These results suggest that the fifteen journals are yet to achieve gender parity in their reviewers, editors, and editorial board members, and continued efforts are needed to achieve gender balance in those three groups of medical academia. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e80709 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e80709 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e76261 2022-07-21 ese

How much do Romanian medical students know about research ethics? A survey Andronic,Octavian Bolocan,Alexandra Păduraru,Dan Nicolae Ion,Daniel Musat,Florentina Dissemination of scientific research ethics courses medical students publishing integrity research integrity research misconduct European Science Editing 48: e76261 Background: Although scientific research in Romania has continued to expand over the past 20 years, it is unclear how prepared the country’s students are to be involved in research and to publish the results of their work.Objectives: To assess Romanian medical students’ level of knowledge about research integrity and research ethics.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 187 medical students (of which 70% were women) from Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, was performed between September 2017 and June 2018. The survey consisted of self-evaluation with respect to three aspects, namely knowledge of research in general, that of research integrity, and that of publication integrity. The self-evaluation was followed by a set of 17 questions that tested the respondent’s knowledge.Results: On average, the proportion of correct answers was 34% (range, 12%–65%). Whereas those who had assigned low grades to themselves (a score below 5) fared poorly (fewer correct answers) in the test that followed, those who rated themselves highly (a score of 5 or higher) did not fare as well as they were expected to. The majority of respondents (83%) were willing to learn more about research integrity through courses, workshops, training programmes, etc.Conclusion: The respondents showed a low level of knowledge related to both research integrity and current standards of reporting scientific research. This lacuna demonstrates the need to train students at the beginning of their academic life because more and more of them, both undergraduate and postgraduate, are likely to be involved in scientific research. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e76261 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e76261 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76261/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76261/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e90113 2022-08-22 ese

Stop paying to be published Open Access -  a French perspective Pourret,Olivier Open Access Article Processing Charges Open archive European Science Editing 48: e90113 Commentary on open access info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e90113 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e90113 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90113/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90113/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e87545 2022-09-07 ese

Equity in reporting settings of studies Knipe,Duleeka Jewkes,Rachel European Science Editing 48: e87545 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e87545 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e87545 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/87545/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/87545/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e91290 2022-10-03 ese

Anonymity in anonymized peer review is incompatible with preprints Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. Anonymous versus named Instructions for authors Peer review models European Science Editing 48: e91290 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e91290 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e91290 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/91290/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/91290/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e86910 2022-10-05 ese

The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines: Implementation and checklist development , Astudillo,Olaya del Pozo Martin,Yaiza Marsh,Joan Editorial checklist editorial process gender equity gender reporting SAGER sex reporting European Science Editing 48: e86910 Understanding sex and gender differences is fundamental to rigorous and inclusive research, whether studying disease pathophysiology, sociodemographic determinants of health, or the benefits and harms of medical or social interventions. The inclusion of gender-diverse study populations has improved, but the reporting of sex and gender variables in research is still incomplete. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, published in 2016, have been widely endorsed, but few scientific journals and organizations have incorporated them into formal editorial guidance and publication policies. To facilitate monitoring of and adherence to the SAGER guidelines in Lancet journals, we carried out an informal pilot study and developed a checklist to enable rapid editorial checks, promote uptake of the guidelines by other editors and journals, and raise awareness among peer reviewers and authors. By using this checklist as part of manuscript assessment and peer-review processes, journal editors can support best reporting practices when considering sex and gender as variables, improving the generalizability of the research they publish. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e86910 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e86910 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/86910/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/86910/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e89445 2022-10-13 ese

Country information in titles – equality or equity Wilson,Kate diversity country European Science Editing 48: e89445 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e89445 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e89445 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e85616 2022-11-21 ese

Scientific abstracts: Texts, contexts, and subtexts Lang,Tom Abstracts of research papers conference proceedings scientific articles scientific publication European Science Editing 48: e85616 In their 4000-year history, abstracts have taken several forms and represented a variety of documents. The scientific journal emerged in the 1600s and gave rise to what would become the modern scientific abstract. Here, I describe the contexts in which abstracts evolved, address the subtexts of opinions about their purpose, and review the texts of 12 kinds of abstracts. For most readers, articles do not exist beyond abstracts. However, the quality of abstracts is often poor. Inaccuracies are common, serious, widespread, and long-standing. Abstracts should inform only the choice of what to read and never what to do. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e85616 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e85616 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/85616/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/85616/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e95247 2022-11-28 ese

How editors can help authors write better papers: Beyond journals and articles Marusic,Ana Marusic,Matko Croatia individual mentoring medical students publishing in war science education scientific periphery European Science Editing 48: e95247 We present the experience of journal editors in improving the quality of published papers. As the editors of the Croatian Medical Journal, a journal from the so-called scientific periphery, we realized, very early after the start of the journal in 1991, that our authors needed significant assistance with their articles. We worked individually with journal authors and then moved this activity to the next stage – intensive workshops for authors. The work with the journals enabled us to extend these activities to graduate and postgraduate students – future authors. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e95247 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e95247 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/95247/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/95247/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e83724 2022-12-09 ese

 Publications on COVID-19 from Vietnam during 2020 and 2021: A bibliometric analysis Nguyen,Van Luong Luong,Dinh-Hai Pham,Hiep-Hung Collaboration clusters most cited authors most productive authors European Science Editing 48: e83724 Background: Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, published research from Vietnam related to the pandemic was analysed using bibliometrics.Objectives: To examine the status of research on COVID-19 by authors from Vietnam.Methods: The following bibliometric aspects were considered in the analysis: international collaboration, institutions from Vietnam and their partner institutions worldwide, subjects and topics, types of documents, and individual authors. The basis of the study was data obtained from the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. The data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, R, and VOSviewer, and the emerging trends illustrated through descriptive analysis and science mapping. Results: Between 2020 and 2021, researchers from Vietnam co-authored 1034 documents related to COVID-19, amounting to 0.35% of the total of 296,148 such documents published worldwide as ascertained from the Scopus database. Vietnam’s top country collaborators in that research were USA, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, and Taiwan ROC. The top Vietnam institutions were Duy Tan University, Ton Duc Thang University, and the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City. The research from Vietnam covered many subjects, from medicine and natural sciences to social sciences and economics. Eight clusters of topics related to COVID-19 were identified. In terms of citations, the most highly cited documents were the outcome of collaboration with international authors. Lastly, the study ranked top authors based on either the number of publications or the number of citations. Conclusion: This study provides a preliminary picture of studies related to COVID-19 co-authored by researchers in Vietnam. The picture may help the Vietnam government in devising appropriate strategies for post-COVID-19 restoration of the country’s socio-economic status. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e83724 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e83724 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83724/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83724/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e90552 2022-12-15 ese

Should editors-in-chief publish in their own journals? ‘Publish elsewhere’ is not a solution Moussa,Salim Editors-in-chief ethics open peer review self-publishing European Science Editing 48: e90552 The question of should editors-in-chief (EICs) publish in their own journals has been hotly debated in academic spheres. Some authors have recommended that EICs should refrain from publishing articles in their own journals. They advocate for a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution. For EICs and journals, a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution is unjust, unfair, inadequate, and counterproductive. For manuscripts (co) authored by EICs, an alternative solution is to use an open peer review procedure in which reviewers’ comments are made public alongside EICs/authors’ responses. An open peer review procedure should make the submission and acceptance dates, the number of revision rounds that EICs’ articles went through, and the identities of handling editors available to readers and the general public. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e90552 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e90552 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90552/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90552/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e95926 2022-12-21 ese

Should editors with multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct serve on journal editorial boards? Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. Academic image corrective science reform responsibilities role models scholarly community European Science Editing 48: e95926 In the academic world, despite their corrective nature, there is still a negative stigma attached to retractions, even more so if they are based on ethical infractions. Editors-in-chief and editors are role models in academic and scholarly communities. Thus, if they have multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct, this viewpoint argues that they should not serve on journals’ editorial boards. The exception is where such individuals have displayed a clear path of scholarly reform. Policy and guidance is needed by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e95926 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e95926 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/95926/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/95926/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2022.e89470 2022-12-22 ese

Gender balance and geographical diversity in editorial boards of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta and Chemical Geology Pourret,Olivier Anand,Pallavi Bots,Pieter Cottrell,Elizabeth Dosseto,Anthony Gunter,Ashley Hedding,David W. Ibarra,Daniel Enrique Irawan,Dasapta Erwin Johannesson,Karen Labidi,Jabrane Little,Susan Liu,Haiyan Makhubela,Tebogo Vincent Marin Carbonne,Johanna Perez-Fodich,Alida Riches,Amy Tartèse,Romain Tripati,Aradhna Editorial boards gender diversity geographic diversity geochemistry journal publishing European Science Editing 48: e89470 Background: Members of editorial boards of academic journals are often considered gatekeepers of knowledge and role models for the academic community. Editorial boards should be sufficiently diverse in the background of their members to facilitate publishing manuscripts representing a wide range of research paradigms, methods, and cultural perspectives.Objectives: To critically evaluate changes in the representation of binary gender and geographic diversity over time on the editorial boards of Chemical Geology and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, flagship geochemistry journals, respectively, from the European Association of Geochemistry and the Geochemical Society – Meteoritical Society partnership.Methods: The composition of editorial boards was ascertained as given in the first issue of each year, over 1965–2021 for Chemical Geology and 1950–2021 for Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, and members of the editorial boards were coded for their country of affiliation (the country of origin may have been different) and for their binary gender.Results: Gender parity, limited to men and women, and the number of countries of affiliation increased steadily between the late 1980s and 2021. However, the geographic distribution remained dominated by affiliations from North America and Western Europe. The editor-in-chief or board of editors had a significant impact on the diversity of the editorial boards, and both geographic and gender diversity may evolve with nearly every newly appointed editor. However, the persistently substantial under-representation on editorial boards of affiliations outside North America and Europe is of concern and needs to be the focus of active recruitment and ongoing monitoring. This approach will ensure that traditionally low geographic diversity is increased and maintained in the future.Conclusion: Improving diversity and inclusion of editorial boards of academic journals and strengthening journal and disciplinary reputations are mutually reinforcing. Instituting a rotating editorship with emphasis on embedding broader geographic networks and more equitable international recruitment could ensure sustained and wider geographic representation and gender balance of editorial boards and promote originality and quality of published research, representing our global communities. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2022.e89470 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e89470 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e90942 2023-01-25 ese

Reducing the risk of bias in academic publishing Nguyen,Thien Academic publishing authors bias editors reviewers European Science Editing 49: e90942 The risk of bias in academic publishing is present from the first stages of the publishing process when the author creates an account and submits the manuscript, which becomes subject to the rights and power of journal editors. The author’s disclosure of certain personal information risks exposing him/her to biases for or against certain groups of authors. To reduce these potential biases, reviewers and editors involved in the assessment of author works should be prevented from accessing authors’ information until the final decision regarding publication has been made. Some information, such as authors’ ORCID details, can be requested after the article is accepted for publication. Standardizing appeal procedures and establishing protocols for handling author appeals is a necessary step in the effort to reduce publication bias. Regulations for the cover letter to editor should also be put in place to ensure that authors’ personal information is not disclosed, either explicitly or implicitly. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e90942 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e90942 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90942/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/90942/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e94153 2023-03-06 ese

Where did this come from? When (not how) to cite sources in scientific publications Lang,Tom Bibliographic errors citations citation metrics documentation references European Science Editing 49: e94153 In the scientific literature, the link between an idea and its source is its reference information that allows the source to be identified and located. Not so obvious is where the source is cited in the text. Although authors are given extensive details on how to format references, they are not always taught when to cite them. Further, many are not vigilant in confirming the accuracy of the quoted information against the source or in verifying the associated reference information. In fact, discrepancies between the information cited in the text and the information actually presented in the source are common and often serious. Further, inaccuracies in references that break the link between the citation and its source are even more common. These discrepancies and inaccuracies affect the integrity of science and the validity of the citation metrics (for example, the Journal Impact Factor) that are used, rightly or wrongly, to evaluate the importance of journals and authors. Here, I discuss factors affecting when and where sources should be cited. I also consider factors that can bias the selection of sources and so interfere with the validity of citation analyses, review some considerations for evaluating a source, call attention to citation and quotation error rates, and review some strategies for reducing these errors. Finally, I summarise the most common recommendations for when, what, where, and why sources should or should not be cited. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e94153 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e94153 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/94153/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/94153/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e99231 2023-03-08 ese

Why the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions asks authors to include the country name in the title Huh,Sun None European Science Editing 49: e99231 None info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e99231 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e99231 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/99231/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/99231/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e96778 2023-03-14 ese

Artistic licence: artwork permission practices at The Lancet group Gash,Danielle Wortley,Christopher Artwork reproduction copyright figures guidelines images permission clearance European Science Editing 49: e96778 Artwork within publications, broadly covering non-text items including graphs, diagrams, and photographs, is typically published under a copyright licence, and permission for the reproduction of such items needs to be sought. The various image rights can be difficult to navigate, especially in the era of open access, and thus at The Lancet, we have developed a streamlined workflow to guide our teams on artwork permission processes in our journals. We present a practical guide for other publishing professionals, which can be adapted to meet their resources and needs. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e96778 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e96778 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/96778/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/96778/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e78084 2023-03-22 ese

Gender differences in time taken for peer review and publishing output in the physical sciences Leedham Elvidge,Emma Gender bias in peer review gender bias in science gender of first authors European Science Editing 49: e78084 Background: Despite decades of work to improve gender equality in science (and other science, technology, engineering, and maths fields), gender bias still exists and has been shown to impact the retention of women in academic scientific careers. Publication of peer-reviewed articles remains a key criterion for career progression and a common marker of success in academia. Any barriers to publication faced by women may therefore impact their retention and career progression.Objectives: To investigate gender differences within one potential barrier to publication, namely the time taken in peer review, by investigating the question: ‘Is the peer review process longer for papers with (assumed) women as first authors than those with (assumed) male first authors?’Methods: Gender differences in peer review time were analysed for 1100 peer-reviewed papers published between 2006 and 2016 and selected from 5 journals covering a range of physical science disciplines and publication styles.Results: In the physical sciences, male first-authored papers outnumbered female first-authored papers 2:1. However, the analysis showed no statistical difference in the time taken for peer review between the two sets of papers.Conclusion: The time taken to peer review a paper is not linked to the gender of the paper’s first author. However, the large discrepancy in the number of papers with men as first authors compared to that with women as first authors could be a contributing factor to the attrition of women from the academic career ladder (the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’). info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e78084 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e78084 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/78084/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/78084/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e98101 2023-04-12 ese

Is it open access if registration is required to obtain scientific content? Yamada,Yuki Nishikawa-Pacher,Andreas Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. Academic publishing licenses open access (OA) registration wall usability European Science Editing 49: e98101 Some journals require users to register before accessing a scientific paper, despite labelling that content as open access (OA) and free-of-charge. We refer to such cases as members-only OA (MOOA), which we contend is not ‘free’ since users are forced to ‘pay’ with personal data. Scholarly content may be accessible via MOOA to either the in-browser text (HTML) or to the archival-friendly version (PDF), or both. We suggest a four-tier typology to capture the degree of openness based on this observation. We believe that technical guidelines of OA implementation should not permit MOOA. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e98101 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e98101 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/98101/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/98101/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e101121 2023-05-03 ese

The role of ChatGPT in scholarly editing and publishing Tsigaris,Panagiotis Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. European Science Editing 49: e101121 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e101121 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e101121 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/101121/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/101121/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e104148 2023-05-15 ese

Academic journals should rethink the concept of originality before permitting the use of ChatGPT Tang,Gengyan European Science Editing 49: e104148 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e104148 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e104148 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/104148/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/104148/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e97925 2023-05-16 ese

Impact of war on editors of science journals from Ukraine: Results of a survey Zhenchenko,Maryna Izarova,Iryna Baklazhenko,Yulia Academic publishing editorial office impact of war peer review journal science editor scientific journals European Science Editing 49: e97925 Background: The war influences every step of the publishing process from the organ-izational structure of the journal and its business model to the psychological and financial well-being of its staff.Objectives: The main aim of our research was to collect and analyse data on how the war has changed the operation and daily lives of those who work in editorial services and how significantly it has impacted their job and work.Methods: The surveyed population comprised the staff on the scientific journals listed in the Ukrainian electronic register of the state scientific institution, namely the Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to collect data on the background and activities of the journal during wartime.Results: Among a total of 160 respondents (a response rate of 13.2%), 85 (53.1%) expe-rienced changes in editorial structure and work, particularly evident in fewer articles (mentioned by 71, or 44.4%, respondents), a switch to working remotely owing to relo-cation of staff (38, or 23.8%, respondents), changes in the frequency of publication (34, or 21.3%, respondents), changes in the topics covered in the articles (25, or 15.6%, respondents), and staff cuts (16, or 10%, respondents).Conclusions: Ukrainian editors continued their work despite severe psychological difficulties and financial dependency. The editors expect greater support from the international community and suggestions on practical strategies to deal with the challenges without significant losses. Continuing surveys to identify problems arising from the changing conditions were also recommended. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e97925 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e97925 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/97925/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/97925/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e99151 2023-06-13 ese

Analysis of academic publishing in Trakya University journals Kiran,Kadri Demiröz,Erdem Güleç,Hacı Ali Atakan,Müge Uzun,Cem Ethics in academic publishing indicators of journal quality journal quality peer review quality of academic publishing transparency in peer review European Science Editing 49: e99151 Background: Although Turkey publishes more than 3000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, fewer than 5% of them are covered by major indexing databases, and only 1 of the 10 scientific journals published by Trakya University (Turkey) is among those quality journals. In November 2017, Trakya University organized a workshop titled ‘Increasing the quality of academic journals at Trakya University’, the ultimate goal of which was to bring together all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing, to review the criteria of publishing quality, and to recommend measures to enhance the quality of academic journals published from Turkey. Objectives: To review the current status of academic journals published by Trakya University in terms of international publishing standards, to devise measures to enhance their quality, and also to help other journals do the same. Methods: Information was collected from the websites of 10 academic journals pub-lished by Trakya University in the fields of natural, medical, and social sciences to assess the extent to which each journal met a set of criteria defining quality academic publishing. These journals were then compared in terms of their success in meeting those criteria.Results: No single measure can improve the quality of all the ten journals published by Trakya University. Balkan Medical Journal topped the list in that it satisfied nearly all the criteria whereas the journals that met the fewest criteria were Trakya University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Trakya University Journal of Faculty of Letters, and Journal of Balkan Libraries Union. Timeliness in ensuring ethical standards was the criterion most often met by the journals, but all 10 failed to meet the criteria related to data accessibility and good reporting guidelines. Of the 8 crite-ria related to fairness of the blind-review processes, all 10 met 6 but none met all 8. In terms of transparency and implementation of best practices, the highest compliance was in terms of the criteria related to the name of the journal, its governing body, and archiving, but no journal made any effort to market itself, that is, to expand its circulation.Conclusions: The strengths and weaknesses of each journal with reference to the quality of academic publishing were highlighted. The method described in the paper can also be used for evaluating other journals. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e99151 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e99151 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/99151/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/99151/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e106940 2023-06-22 ese

Acknowledging tribal affiliations in medical research Wortley,Christopher European Science Editing 49: e106940   info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e106940 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e106940 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e102691 2023-07-31 ese

Citation coverage by Dimensions and Scopus of articles published in European Science Editing Ansorge,Libor Citation coverage comparison of scholarly databases metadata on citations European Science Editing 49: e102691 Background: The two main bibliometric databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus, are not available for free, whereas the Dimensions is one of the new freely available bibliometric databases and is considered to be an alternative to Scopus in particular.Objectives: To compare the information on citations to articles published in European Science Editing as available in the Dimensions to that available in Scopus.Methods: Information on articles published in European Science Editing that were cited in sources published between 2020 and 2022 was analysed to compare the relevant data as given by Dimensions and Scopus.Results: Both databases were similar in terms of the number of cited articles, the number of citing articles, and the number of citations. Of the total of 35 cited articles, 3 were unique to each of the 2 databases. Of the total of 93 citing articles, 74 were found in Scopus and 75 in the Dimensions.Conclusions: Scopus and Dimensions shared an overlap of 84% in articles cited but of only 60% in the citing articles. Information on individual citing articles strongly suggests that Dimensions takes data on citing articles from CrossRef. Unfortunately, these metadata contain errors. Data on citations in the Dimension database could be made more accurate if the references appended to the citing articles listed in the Crossref database were under an open license. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e102691 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e102691 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/102691/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/102691/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e106656 2023-10-13 ese

Opinion on open-science practices and the importance of scientists’ information literacy skills in context of open science at the University of Rijeka, Croatia – a cross-sectional study Golenko,Dejana Arh,Evgenia Bazdaric,Ksenija Archiving attitude information literacy librarian open access open science opinion questionnaire science scientists social media tool European Science Editing 49: e106656 Background: Although opinions of scientists about open access and the importance of their skills in information literacy have been investigated earlier but not, to our knowledge, of those in Croatia.Objective: The objective was to analyse the opinions on open access and on open-science practices before implementing open-science policies.Methods: Scientists at the University of Rijeka (N = 1256) were invited to complete, anonymously, an online questionnaire on open science (Google Forms) in 2020 and their responses were analysed.Results: Altogether 192 participants (a response rate 15%) were involved in this study, of which 110 (57%) were women. The mean age of the participants was 42 years (stand-ard deviation 11). The participants pursued careers in biomedical (37%), social (31%), or technical (14%) sciences; 20% were early-career researchers or postdoctoral research-ers, and 80% held the rank of assistant professor or higher. Most of them (88%) agreed that journals should be open access and 77% said they would choose the open-access journal if they had to choose between two journals with similar impact factors. Most (83%) considered publishing fees (article processing charges) to be too high; fewer than half (45%) considered the impact factor to be more important than open access; and 28% believed open access journals to be of lower quality. Nearly three-fourths (74%) had published at least one article in an open access journal, and 45%, without paying any fee. Only a few (10.9%) archived their articles in institutional or national repositories; more than a quarter (27%), on their web pages; and close to half (43%), on their social networks. To obtain papers not available to read online, more than half (56%) used Sci-Hub; slightly more than half (51%) wrote to the authors; 40% asked col-leagues for help; and 35% approached a librarian.Conclusions: Most of the scientists in our study were in favour of open access but con-sidered the publication fees to be too high. Their archiving was inadequate: few used any institutional or national repositories. Therefore, the scientists need to be more information literate and require guidance and help from librarians and will benefit from training in information literacy including the principles of open access. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e106656 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e106656 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106656/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106656/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e112023 2023-11-06 ese

Integrating an artificial intelligence chatbot in scientific communication: Dos and don’ts Pollesello,Piero Papp,Zoltán Artificial intelligence editing scientific communication European Science Editing 49: e112023 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e112023 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e112023 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/112023/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/112023/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e112506 2023-11-10 ese

Why is European Science Editing not covered by Dimension, and does Dimension contain citation errors? Huh,Sun European Science Editing 49: e112506 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e112506 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e112506 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/112506/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/112506/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e113445 2023-11-20 ese

Correspondence to “the role of ChatGPT in scholarly editing and publishing” Azeez,Mohammad Anas Sohail,Shahab Saquib European Science Editing 49: e113445 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e113445 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e113445 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/113445/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/113445/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e107484 2023-11-24 ese

Using text-matching software in educational science research: Research results from 18 universities in Vietnam Pham,Thuan Le,Hien Nghiem,Thanh Hang,Do Nguyen,Can Nguyen,Huy Plagiarism plagiarism-checking software research ethics universities in Vietnam European Science Editing 49: e107484 Background: Plagiarism by researchers and college students in Vietnam has become a major concern for publishers. Many cases of master’s theses of graduate students in Vietnam being cancelled or their diplomas being revoked for plagiarism are recorded, and some scientists also have been warned or criticized for plagiarism or self-plagiarism.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyse the use in educational research of 13 popular text-matching software packages at universities in Vietnam.Methods: The study was based on semistructured interviews of 104 researchers from 18 universities in Vietnam with reference to the use of text-matching software by the researchers.Results: The three most commonly used text-matching software packages were Turnitin, DoIT, and iThenticate. Three-fourths of the 18 universities employ text-matching software and although 17 out of 104 researchers were unfamiliar with such software. Universities in Vietnam primarily require plagiarism checks for master’s theses (79 out of 104 responses) and doctoral dissertations (72 out of 104 responses). Out of 104 participants, 32 use them for graduate theses or project reports, and 45 use them for research papers and project reports.Conclusions: Many universities in Vietnam are yet to specify the requirements for use of text-matching software, and most researchers and students use it only when prompted by publishers or institutions. Researchers in educational science typically lack the financial resources and the requisite skills for using text-matching software. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e107484 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e107484 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/107484/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/107484/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e106882 2023-12-08 ese

Research collaboration between global North and global South assessed in terms of published output: a case study of Australia and Vietnam Pham,Hiep-Hung Phan,Thanh Thao Do,Minh-Trang Luong,Dinh-Hai Bibliometric analysis co-authoring intercountry research collaboration North–South collaboration science mapping European Science Editing 49: e106882 Background: Vietnam and Australia have a long-standing history of collaboration in various fields, notably education, science, and technology. However, the results of this partnership remain indeterminate.Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the current state of research coop-eration between Australia and Vietnam with reference to the following aspects: (1) increase in the number of research publications over time; (2) proportion of open access (OA) publications in total publications; (3) collaboration involving countries other than Australia and Vietnam; (4) funding sources; (5) top institutions; (6) subject areas; and (7) research topics.Methods: Scopus data set was analysed to identify those papers with two or more authors, with at least one author from Australia and at least one from Vietnam.Results: Most (nearly 84%) of research papers arising out of such collaborative research were published between 2014 and 2022 (7020 of the total of 8460 documents), and almost half (49.6%) of those are OA. Besides Australia and Vietnam, the authors of those papers were from other countries as well nor were the agencies that funded the research reported in those papers limited to Australia or Vietnam. Among the countries involved in terms of co-authorship or funding, the United States was the most influential. The institutional collaborations formed three distinct clusters, each with a varying number of members and a different university at the core (Australian in two clusters and Vietnamese in the third). Medicine was the most frequent field of collaborative research, and the most frequent topics were Vietnam, coronavirus disease 2019, and climate change.Conclusions: The findings offer useful insights to policymakers as well as to senior management of academic institutes in Vietnam and Australia. The study also extends our understanding of collaborative research between the Global North and the Global South. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e106882 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e106882 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106882/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106882/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e107138 2023-12-12 ese

Digital transformation in education: a bibliometric analysis using Scopus Phuong,Thao Trinh Thi Nguyen,Tien Trung Nguyen,Nam Danh Ngo Van,Dinh Luong,Hoang Dinh Nguyen,Le Van An Tran,Trung Bibliometric analysis digital education digital learning digital transformation Scopus database European Science Editing 49: e107138 Background: Digital transformation refers to applying digital technology in various fields of society. In the last 5 years, digital transformation has spread to most areas of social life, including education. However, research on digital transformation in education is still fragmented.Objectives: The aim of the study was to present a comprehensive review of studies on digital transformation in education using bibliometric analysis.Methods: We searched the Scopus database from inception to 1 January 2023 using the search terms ‘digital transformation’ AND ‘education’ within abstracts, keywords, or titles of journal articles or conference papers written in English. The retrieved articles were analysed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny tools.Results: A total of 1329 relevant studies were retrieved. Although the first paper in this field was published in 1999, the number of publications has increased rapidly only in the past 4 years. The most influential countries in this field are the developed countries (Russian Federation, Germany, and the United States), but scholars from the developing countries (Indonesia and Thailand) are among the most productive. Papers on digital transformation are frequently published in journals with lower rankings within the Scopus database. Using VOSviewer for keyword co-occurrence analysis, we classified the research topics related to digital transformation in educa-tion into four main groups: digital transformation in higher education under the impact of the coronavirus disease pandemic 2019 pandemic, applying the technolo-gies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to education, digitization and digital compe-tence in education in the context of digital transformation, and learning forms using technology (for example, e-learning, m-learning, and blended learning) in higher-education institutions.Conclusions: Four research trends related to digital transformation in education were identified. These trends may also change as digital transformation continues to develop. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e107138 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e107138 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/107138/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/107138/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e114977 2023-12-22 ese

Enhancing scientific publishing: automatic conversion to JATS XML Jertec Musap,Ljiljana DOCX conversion full-text JATS XML HRČAK Journal Article Tag Suite open formats European Science Editing 49: e114977 JATS XML (Journal Article Tag Suite) is an XML-based format used for publishing scholarly content. It has multiple advantages over traditional publishing methods but faces adoption challenges due to the need for relatively expensive tools and/or manual work. In 2023, the HRČAK Portal’s team enabled automatic full-text con-version from DOCX to JATS XML which does not require prior knowledge of XML nor additional tools. Created JATS facilitates content and reference mining as well as transformation to HTML. It also improves cross-device compatibility and produces interactive links for an enhanced reading experience. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e114977 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e114977 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114977/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114977/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e113535 2023-12-28 ese

Predatory activities require coordinated action by publisher’ and editors’ organizations: a case report Van Loon,Antonius (Tom) Journal quality predatory journals publishing experiment scientific reliability European Science Editing 49: e113535 Background: Scientists are confronted nowadays with a tsunami of requests by preda-tory journals to contribute.Objectives: To inform potential authors, readers, reviewers, and editors of scien-tific articles about the ever-growing flow of low-quality publications and their neg-ative consequences, based on the author’s personal experience and on scrutiny of more than 360 invitations, received over 4 months, from journals to contribute a manuscript.Methods: The requests to contribute a manuscript received by the author during 4 months were analysed for the characteristics of the journals and publishers issuing the invitations.Results: A total of 368 requests were received during 4 months (123 days), on average 3 per day, from a total of 216 journals. Of these, 164 (~76%) were no more than 10 years old, and 129 of the 162 journals (~80%) that sent an invitation to contribute have no editor-in-chief; for 12 journals (~7%), the starting year could not be ascertained. Many journals are not located where they claim to be (typically the UK or the United States) but rather in countries such as India and Singapore. Slightly more than half of 216 journals (~54%) deal with medical matters.Conclusions: Predatory journals pose a severe threat to the quality of scientific infor-mation, which is why attempts should be made to stop them. A proposal to prepare an indisputable alternative for Beall’s List of potentially predatory journals is presented. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e113535 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e113535 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/113535/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/113535/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2023.e116106 2023-12-29 ese

Peer review in the global digital age: perspectives of publishing industry stakeholders Toroser,Dikran Sarwar,Muhammad Detora,Lisa Dormer,Laura Sayab,Maryam Alternative peer review models diversity and inclusivity future trends peer review scholarly publishing technology tools European Science Editing 49: e116106 Peer review is a crucial component of the scientific publication process, enabling validation of research, identification of errors, and removal of potential bias. However, there are some well-known limitations, including slow publication cycles and overstringent gatekeeping. Artificial intelligence and digital technology are revolutionizing peer review and publishing by addressing some of the limitations, and fostering closer collaboration among scholars worldwide.1-3 This paradigm shift aligns with the principles of open science, enhancing the reach and impact of scholarly work. Digital tools for peer review are already transforming many aspects of this process, by enhancing quality control, automation of routine tasks, and expediting laborious aspects of the peer review process, thereby enhancing speed and efficiency. Digital platforms are reducing publication times and potentially allowing for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity of the peer reviewer pool by vastly enhancing global connectivity. Selecting qualified and impartial global reviewers in the digital context is vital for the future of our rapidly evolving and increasingly diverse publication landscape. Editors play a key role in oversight while providing reviewers with clear guidelines and training. In conclusion, digital tools assisting peer review will inevitably play an increasingly useful role in enhancing the efficiency, and potentially the inclusivity and objectivity of the process. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2023 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2023.e116106 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e116106 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/116106/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/116106/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e114734 2024-02-23 ese

Reporting and presentation of statistical analyses: instructions for authors of health sciences journals based in South Africa Joubert,Gina Health sciences journals reporting statistics South Africa statistical guidelines European Science Editing 50: e114734 Background: Statistical analyses are a key component of quantitative research in health sciences. Objectives: To review the instructions for authors on reporting and presentation of statistical methods by all health sciences journals based in South Africa. Methods: Health sciences journals based in South Africa that publish original quanti-tative research articles were identified using three sources, namely the list of accred-ited South African journals compiled by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training in 2022, relevant journals covered in Scopus, and web pages of major health sciences publishers in South Africa. The list was cross-checked against the listing of journals in Sabinet, an online database covering South Africa, under the category ‘Collection: Medicine and Health’. The instructions for authors given by the journals were accessed through their websites. The form for recording data was based on items listed in the ‘Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature’ (SAMPL) guidelines. Results: All except one of the 52 journals could be located online. Of the 51, 13 (25%) made no mention of statistics in their instructions, and 11 (22%) made only a gen-eral statement regarding statistical content with no further guidance. The statistical item most frequently mentioned was the P value (45% of journals), whereas the rest of the items appeared in the instructions of 20% or fewer journals. Nine journals (18%) referred to the EQUATOR guidelines, mainly CONSORT (10%). Conclusion: Nearly half of the health sciences journals based in South Africa either did not mention statistics at all in their instructions for authors or made only a cur-sory reference to statistics. The study thus emphasizes that these journals, in their instructions for authors, need to cover in greater detail the reporting and presenta-tion of statistical methods in articles reporting quantitative research. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e114734 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e114734 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114734/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114734/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e119537 2024-03-04 ese

Editorial input on manuscript review feedback Joubert,Gina Editorial input review process feedback European Science Editing 50: e119537 Not applicable. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e119537 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e119537 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/119537/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/119537/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e118015 2024-04-26 ese

Bibliometric analysis of publications trends in Indonesian research institutions: A comparison of pre-integration (2015–2021) and post-integration (2022–2023) periods Handoyo,Setiowiji Indah Dwi Prastiti,Poppy Ridwan Stiaji,Iwan Integration of research institutes publications as research output Scopus database European Science Editing 50: e118015 Background: Institutional transformation – integrating many disparate research insti-tutes into the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN, for Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional) – was the most significant reform in the history of institutional gov-ernance in Indonesia. This integration policy aims to enable the state to strengthen the national research and innovation ecosystem and improve the performance of research institutions, one indicator of which is their output of publications reporting the results of research. Objectives: To compare the published output of research institutes before and after the integration of research institutions into BRIN. Methods: Relevant data retrieved through Scopus on 24 December 2023 and span-ning the period between 2015 and 2023 were analysed using Microsoft Excel, and col-laboration networks of authors and of countries were constructed using VOSviewer and examined for co-authors in different countries collaborating with first authors in Indonesia. Results: The number of publications increased annually over the period 2015–2023. However, the annual rate of growth after (2021–2023) the integration of research institutions was higher (36%) than that before (2015–2021) the integration (30%). Conference papers (51%) dominated the pre-integration era, whereas articles (57%) dominated the post-integration era, and the number of reputable journals in which the research was published was greater after the integration. Conclusions: The period after the integration of research institutions saw enhanced research output in terms of the number of research publications, annual rate of growth in that number, and the number of reputable journals in which the publica-tions appeared. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e118015 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e118015 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/118015/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/118015/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e114702 2024-04-29 ese

Inclusiveness in mental health research: a survey of attitudes, awareness, and actions among journal editors Pezzoli,Patrizia Zhai,Weili Marsh,Joan Viding,Essi Diversity inclusion mental health intention-action gap lived experience European Science Editing 50: e114702 Background: Improving inclusiveness in mental health research merits attention as we seek to reduce inequalities in mental health. Academic journals can promote inclusiveness through editorial practices related to the selection of content and the composition of journal editorial boards. Objectives: To investigate the attitudes, awareness, and actions of journal editors con-cerning inclusiveness in mental health research and editorial practices. Methods: We surveyed 74 chief and senior editors, representing 55 prominent journals in neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology (2021 impact factor M = 8.04, SD = 10.76). Results: Most respondents (74–99%) acknowledged the importance of inclusiveness in mental health research, and a majority (62–78%) were familiar with existing guide-lines. Half or fewer of the journals (49–50%) had policies for selecting content that is diverse, and 20% had policies regarding inclusion of individuals with lived experi-ence of mental health challenges. Well over half the journals (57–72%) had policies to widen diversity among their editorial boards and roughly half (43–53%) among peer reviewers, although only a few (18–23%) included among their editors or peer review-ers individuals with lived experience of dealing with mental health challenges. Conclusions: This study highlighted an intention-action gap, with positive attitudes and awareness but limited editorial practices promoting inclusiveness in mental health research. Inclusion of individuals with lived experience emerged as an area in particular need of improvement. We discuss potential strategies that journals might consider to foster inclusiveness, such as diversity training, publication checklists, and infrastructure that supports participatory approaches. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Original Article text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e114702 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e114702 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114702/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114702/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e123965 2024-04-30 ese

Ethical problems of secondary publications without author’s knowledge Ansorge,Libor European Science Editing 50: e123965 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e123965 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e123965 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123965/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123965/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e124173 2024-05-14 ese

Article processing charges suppress the scholarship of doctoral students Wang,Joshua Article processing charge doctoral education open access scholarly publishing transformative open access agreement European Science Editing 50: e124173 The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e124173 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e124173 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/124173/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/124173/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e118119 2024-05-17 ese

Lists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinement Fahmi,Hussein Abdulla,Berwn Abdullah,Hiwa Omar,Sami Mohammed,Shvan Ahmed,Sasan Mohammed,Karukh Hassan,Hemn Baba,Hiwa Ahmed,jaafar Mustafa,Mohammed Omar,Diyar Salih,Rawezh Rahmi,Hawbash Hussein,Dahat Hassan,Marwan Mikael,Tomas Hassan,Hunar Najar,Kayhan Academic Journal Predatory Checking Beall’s list Cabells’ list Kscien’s list predatory journals European Science Editing 50: e118119 Although predatory publishers are increasingly recognized, universally accepted criteria for defining predatory journals are lacking. These journals challenge the scholarly community by blurring the line between legitimate and questionable publishing practices. Several lists and reports of predatory journals have been published, which offer valuable insights; however, they are not devoid of criticism. Beall’s list, although criticized for its inclusion criteria, is currently managed anony-mously and updated infrequently. Cabells’ list uses an extensive array of inclusion criteria, some of which are similar to those used in Beall’s list. Several of these cri-teria are redundant and fail to detect predatory practices, and using all of them in evaluating a journal is seldom practicable. Kscien’s list has emerged as a promising alternative for identifying predatory publishers or journals. However, it requires refinement, potentially through creating a distinct list supported by unequivocal evidence, such as accepting a fake manuscript (ascertained through a sting opera-tion). The present review seeks to catalyze research on identifying predatory jour-nals and publishers by comparing existing lists and suggesting new techniques for detecting predatory practices. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e118119 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e118119 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/118119/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/118119/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e120611 2024-06-03 ese

A journal veracity–diligence index Tang,Bor Luen Academic publishing due diligence by academic journals research misconduct retraction of papers veracity of published research whistleblowing in publishing European Science Editing 50: e120611 Inaccuracies, false information, and fraudulent work in scientific publications could cause indirect harm, lead to significant negative socioeconomic impacts, and erode public trust in science. Journals – and publishers – play an essential role as gate-keepers in ensuring the veracity of published scientific literature. However, beyond corporate pride and integrity, there is usually no legal obligation or formal regulatory requirement for journals to ensure the veracity of the work they publish or be efficient and transparent in any investigative proceedings. Here, I propose a numerical indicator of the performance of a journal in terms of its efforts at establishing the veracity of the work it publishes and due diligence, an index computed from the following values: a) frequency of alleged irregularities or misconduct, b) frequency of retractions, c) efficiency of the journal’s response to concerns or allegations, and d) transparency and thoroughness with which the journal investigates those concerns and announces its findings and actions. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Review text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e120611 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e120611 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/120611/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/120611/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e129735 2024-07-15 ese

Introducing the EASE Interactive Checklist for Submitting Authors Bazdaric,Ksenija Marsh,Joan Nicholas,Duncan authorship checklist conflict of interest competing interests CREdiT EASE ethics guidelines journals submission European Science Editing 50: e129735 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Editorial text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e129735 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e129735 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/129735/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/129735/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e131771 2024-08-19 ese

On the emergence of tortured phrases: A threat to scientific integrity—the example of “heavy metal” Pourret,Olivier European Science Editing 50: e131771   info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Correspondence text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e131771 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e131771 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/131771/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/131771/download/pdf/ en

10.3897/ese.2024.e123908 2024-09-02 ese

Proposing authorship for artificial intelligence and large language models Teixeira da Silva,Jaime A. accountability author principles responsibilities transparency trust European Science Editing 50: e123908 The current and predominant school of thought in academic publishing, with a correspondingly rigorously implemented set of ethical policies, notes that classic authorship is a purely human endeavor. However, such rigid conceptual restrictions on authorship for artificial intelligence (AI), like large language models (LLMs), may be borne from fear, emerging perhaps from being intellectually threatened by AI/LLMs that might outperform humans. In this paper, considering several caveats, a world of academic publishing in which AI/LLMs are offered a fair opportunity of authorship, coined AI-authorship, is envisioned. info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2518-3354 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0258-3127 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC BY 4.0 European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2024 Viewpoint text/html info:doi:10.3897/ese.2024.e123908 https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e123908 https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123908/ https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123908/download/pdf/ en cGFnZT0xJnNldD1lc2UmZnJvbT0mdW50aWw9Jm1ldGFkYXRhX3ByZWZpeD1vYWlfZGM=