DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e198522

Authors: Bahar Mehmani, Iva Grabaric Andonovski, Are Brean, Cem Uzun, Iryna Izarova

Abstract: The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issues this statement in support of its members and regional chapters across the Middle East and beyond, particularly in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, as well as the broader scholarly community affected by the ongoing escalation of armed conflict.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e173048

Authors: Jeremy Y. Ng, Keya Sultanaamin, Lex Bouter, Daniele Fanelli, Tamarinde Haven, Holger Cramer

Abstract: Background: Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) includes a diverse range of practices, products, and therapies outside the scope of conven-tional Western medicine, including acupuncture, Ayurveda, chiropractic care, and homeopathy. Globally, TCIM is widely used and recognized by most World Health Organization member states, and research in this field has grown substantially in recent decades. However, TCIM research is often criticized for methodological weak-nesses and insufficient rigour, raising concerns about its evidence base and credi-bility. Retraction of scientific articles serves as an essential mechanism to safeguard research integrity, alerting the scientific community to serious errors or misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. The increasing number of retractions across biomedical research highlights the importance of understanding their under-lying causes. Studying retracted TCIM publications may provide unique insights into recurring methodological, ethical, or systemic issues specific to this field and inform strategies to strengthen research quality.Objectives: The proposed research protocol will use a retrospective analysis to ana-lyse retracted TCIM articles reported in the Retraction Watch database. Methods: Articles classified under ‘(HSC) Medicine – Alternative’ will be identified, extracted, and compared descriptively against retracted non-TCIM publications. Variables of interest include reasons for retraction, date of retraction, article type, journal, publisher, country, number of authors, paywall status, and time from publi-cation to retraction. Data will be summarized using descriptive statistics, with explor-atory comparisons made between TCIM and non-TCIM retractions.Conclusions: The findings will provide the first comprehensive overview of TCIM retractions, offering valuable insights into patterns of flawed research in the field.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e174219

Authors: Samira Boukorraa, Ridha Mhamdi

Abstract: Background: The integrity of scholarly literature is paramount, yet retracted research remains largely unexamined within the rapidly growing field of green economy.Objectives: As the first systematic analysis of retracted research publications in the green economy, this study aims to (1) quantify the proportion of retractions and identify temporal and geographic patterns of retractions, (2) map the intellectual structure of the retracted literature, and (3) identify the primary causes and impacts of these retractions.Methods: A corpus of 61,273 Scopus-indexed documents on the green economy was analyzed; of these, 181 retracted publications were systematically identified and examined. The analysis included quantitative assessment of the proportion of retractions and keyword co-occurrence using VOSviewer in addition to qualitative content analysis of retraction notices.Results: The proportion of retractions (retraction rate) was 29.5 retractions for every 10,000 publications, significantly higher than that in many scientific disciplines. Two distinct crisis periods were identified, 2009–2011 and 2021–2024, involving different publication channels (conference proceedings and journals), with 86% of the retractions originating from China. The leading causes of the retractions were compromised peer review (78%) and referencing issues (66%), particularly affecting research in sustainability–industry linkages, energy transitions, and climate-related economic policy. Notably, 59% of the retractions came from in Q1/Q2 journals, and some of the retracted papers had been cited as many as 121–177 times.Conclusion: The findings revealed critical systemic vulnerabilities in the scholarly ecosystem, including the exploitation of special issues and opaque retraction processes. The authors propose three evidence-based interventions to reinforce integrity: enhanced conference governance, AI-assisted validation of peer reviews, and adoption of standardized metadata on retractions.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e173438

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: As doctoral theses become increasingly accessible through open repositories and similarity-checking software is applied more widely, many early-career researchers encounter the rejection of manuscripts that are legitimately derived from their theses. This viewpoint examines the complexities of text recycling (often inaccurately labelled ‘self-plagiarism’), reviews how publisher policies and editorial practices have evolved in the past decade, and argues for transparent communication among authors, supervisors, and editors. Drawing on the Text Recycling Research Project Best Practices for Researchers and a model policy for publishers, this article proposes measures such as author disclosures, clear repository embargo policies, and submision-system prompts to reconcile the principles of open science with fair publication practices. A more harmonised approach would serve not only authors but also the integrity of the scholarly record.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165365

Authors: Anuradha Baminiwatta, Chathuranga Costa, Dinuka Weerasinghe, S. M. Yasir Arafat, Brady D. Lund

Abstract: Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic publishing is expanding rapidly, raising concerns about authorship, transparency, and editorial standards. Although organisations such as Committee on Publication Ethics and International Council of Medical Journal Editors have proposed guidelines on the use of AI, the extent to which they have been adopted by journals in psychiatry and mental health remains unclear.Objectives: To examine the adoption and content of AI policies in psychiatry and mental health journals indexed in SCImago and to determine whether higher-quartile journals are more likely to include policies related to AI.Methods: Policies related to AI in the guidelines for authors and reviewers were examined for two groups of journals, all indexed under Psychiatry and Mental Health in SCImago in November-December 2024. The two groups were (1) a stratified random sample of 200 journals (50 per quartile) chosen from a total of 578 journals and (2) 25 top-ranked journals in psychiatry and mental health.Results: Among the first group, 78 (39%) journals included policies related to AI in their guidelines or instructions for authors and reviewers, the number being greater in top-quartile journals (56% in Q1 versus 20% in Q4; χ² = 14, P = .003). Of the 78 journals, 69 (88.5%) disallowed AI tools as named authors, an equal number mandated disclosure of the use of AI, and 58 (74.4%) emphasised author accountability. Peer review policies mostly prohibited AI use (n = 47); AI-assisted copy editing was permitted in 56 journals; and policies on AI-generated images varied. None reported using AI detection tools. Among the top 25 journals, 16 (64%) included policies related to AI; all prohibited authorship to AI and required disclosure; and one reported using AI detection tools.Conclusion: Despite the rising use of AI in publishing, most psychiatry and mental health journals, especially the lower-quartile journals, lack policies on such use. Wider adoption and standardisation of policies related to AI are crucial to ensure research integrity and credibility.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e159921

Authors: Jeremy Y. Ng, Daivat Bhavsar, Neha Dhanvanthry, Lex Bouter, Teresa Chan, Annette Flanagin, Alfonso Iorio, Cynthia Lokker, Hervé Maisonneuve, Ana Marušić, David Moher, Holger Cramer

Abstract: Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are advanced conversational programmes capable of performing tasks such as identifying methodological flaws, verifying references, and improving language clarity in manuscripts. Their use in peer review has the potential to enhance efficiency, reduce reviewer workload, and address inconsistencies in review quality. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency in decision-making, and little is known about how peer reviewers perceive these tools.Objectives: To assess peer reviewers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the use of AI chatbots in the peer review process, including their familiarity with AI, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical considerations, and expectations for future roles.Methods: An international cross-sectional survey will be conducted among academic peer reviewers. The survey will collect data on participants’ prior experience with AI, perceptions of the utility of chatbots in supporting peer review, concerns related to ethics and transparency, and anticipated future applications.Results: This study will report descriptive and comparative analyses of reviewers’ responses, highlighting patterns in attitudes and perceptions by demographic and professional characteristics.Conclusions: The findings may offer evidence to inform the development of future policies and best practices for the ethical and effective integration of AI chatbots in peer review, with the goal of improving review quality while addressing potential risks.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165043

Authors: Reese Richardson, Matt Spick

Abstract: The combination of open-access datasets, machine learning workflows, increased computing capacity, and generative artificial intelligence has effectively removed many of the rate-limiting steps in manuscript production. This has created an industry of click-data science and a flood of low-quality manuscripts based on large health datasets such as the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the UK Biobank, and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. These papers often employ statistically appropriate methods and real data, but introduce misleading results and false discoveries to the literature. Here, we offer suggestions for editors on how to identify such manuscripts and reject them at the point of submission, reducing the burden on the publishing process.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e153973

Authors: Alex Glynn

Abstract: The tendency of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to ‘hallucinate’ false information is well known; AI-generated citations to non-existent sources have penetrated the bibliographies of peer-reviewed publications. Drawing from the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines, American judicial contention with generative AI, and the submission of prior art to the US Patent and Trademark Office, the author proposes that journals require authors to submit the full text of each cited source along with their manuscripts, thereby preventing authors from citing material whose full text they cannot produce. This solution requires limited additional work by authors or editors while effectively immunizing journals against hallucinated references.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e120210

Authors: Hristina Prodanova, Stelian Dimitrov

Abstract: Background: The requirement of publishing high-quality papers in established peer-reviewed journals is still in the early days of implementation among academic geographers in Bulgaria, which limits the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research and delays the possibilities of academic recognition and international collaboration.Objectives: To examine the current visibility and impact of Bulgarian geographers using quantitative analysis of publicly available data derived from eight scientometric databases and social media platforms.Methods: Relevant data were collected for 116 researchers affiliated with five institutions from the following sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Publons, ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate, LinkedIn, and X (Twitter). Using Microsoft Excel, the performance of each of the researchers and each of the institutions was quantified in terms of (1) the number of publications, (2) the number of citations, (3) H-index, (4) i10-index, and (5) Research Interest Score. The scores were also plotted using RAWGraphs and Microsoft PowerPoint.Results: Only half of the researchers had published in internationally indexed journals. The institutions and departments in the capital city, Sofia, enjoyed significantly and disproportionately higher visibility than those from smaller towns. Geographers from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Sofia) and one department from Sofia University showed the highest visibility on Scopus (100%), whereas two rural universities – the University of Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen University – were visible mostly on ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Overall visibility of each institution on social media was very low (8%–16%).Conclusions: The analysis led to several recommendations on increasing the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research in geography. These recommendations will be valuable in research management, public relations, especially in improving communications and devising development strategies.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e156214

Authors: Agnieszka Freda, Ana Heredia, Charoula Tzanakou, Joan Marsh

Abstract: -

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e151110

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI)’s revised policy, which excludes authorship credit disputes from plagiarism, is potentially problematic because acts of intellectual property (IP) misappropriation, intended or otherwise, might potentially be exonerated from plagiarism or not adequately adjudicated as such. I argue that all authorship credit disputes should be considered as involving plagiarism unless it is clearly proven that there is no misappropriation of IP on the part of the alleged/respondent. This notion is important to prevent the prevalence of injustice due to power imbalances between senior and junior as well as between residential and tem-porary/departed researchers.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e140235

Authors: Joshua Wang

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e136216

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131528

Authors: Philippe C. Baveye

Abstract: Journal and book editors in most disciplines are faced with a flood of meta-analyses, which critical reviews have shown are not always of sufficient quality. In the short run, editors could give targeted instructions to authors and make specific recommendations to reviewers to ensure that not only meta-analyses but also research syntheses more broadly, published under their watch, meet acceptable publication standards. In order to achieve satisfactory improvements in the long run, editors should foster fundamental changes in the way the publication of negative and non-significant results is handled.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e135388

Authors: Libor Ansorge

Abstract: In his recent correspondence, Olivier Pourret points out the occurrence of “tortured phrases” due to the application of paraphrasing software.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e132192

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: An exercise in AI driven publishing

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131771

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e129735

Authors: Ksenija Baždarić, Joan Marsh, Duncan Nicholas

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e120611

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e123965

Authors: Libor Ansorge

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e107138

Authors: Thao Trinh Thi Phuong, Tien-Trung Nguyen, Nam Nguyen Danh, Dinh Ngo Van, Hoang Dinh Luong, Le Van An Nguyen, Trung Tran

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106940

Authors: Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e97925

Authors: Maryna Zhenchenko, Iryna Izarova, Yulia Baklazhenko

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e104148

Authors: Gengyan Tang

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e101121

Authors: Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e94153

Authors: Thomas A. Lang

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e95926

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90552

Authors: Salim Moussa

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e91290

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e76261

Authors: Octavian Andronic, Alexandra Bolocan, Dan Nicolae Păduraru, Daniel Ion, Florentina Musat

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e80709

Authors: Roxanna Wang, Robin Roberts, James C Fredenburgh, Mary Cushman, Jeffrey I Weitz

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e81677

Authors: Cary Moskovitz, Michael Pemberton, Susanne Hall

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e83864

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e76284

Authors: Jocalyn Clark, Reshma Jagsi

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e69596

Authors: Rabia Gönül Sezer Yamanel, Pınar Kumru, Semra Kayataş Eser, Ayşenur Celayir

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e67829

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: ‘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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e68868

Authors: Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e59855

Authors: Denys Wheatley

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e60203

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva, Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e62065

Authors: Ashley N Cooper, Jessica E Dwyer

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e54417

Authors: Amon P Shoko, Ismael A Kimirei, Baraka C Sekadende, Mary A Kishe, Innocent E Sailale

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e57377

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53192

Authors: Natalia Alimova, Yuri Brumshteyn

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53477

Authors: Sylwia Ufnalska, Alison Terry

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53230

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric, Pippa Smart

Abstract: 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?

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51002

Authors: Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Muayad Azzam, Abdallah Massad, Dana Alqatawneh

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF