DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e162102

Authors: Londa Schiebinger, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Elena Gissi, Shirin Heidari, Richard Horton, Kari C. Nadeau, Dorothy Ngila, Safiya Umoja Noble, Hee Young Paik, Girmaw Abebe Tadesse, Eddy Y. Zeng, James Zou, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Intersectional analysis goes beyond consideration of single variables to examine the compounded impact at the intersections of, for example, gender and race, or geographical location and caste. The Guidelines for Intersectional Analysis in Science and Technology (GIST) help researchers, journal editors, and funding agencies systematically integrate intersectional analysis into relevant domains of science and technology. These guidelines serve as a roadmap for quantitative intersectional analysis throughout the research process—from setting strategic research priorities and shaping research questions to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Here we provide a checklist to facilitate author and journal editor compliance with the guidelines. We recommend that the GIST checklist be added to journals’ “Information for Authors”. The goal is to reset the research default to include intersectional analysis, where appropriate. Intersectional analysis leads to better science: precision in research best guides effective social and environmental policies that, in turn, enhance global equity and sustainability.

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.e142485

Authors: Shelly Melissa Pranić, Ana Heredia, Charikleia Tzanakou, Pavel Ovseiko, Kate Wilson, Diana Samuel, Christina Kassiteridi

Abstract: Background: Scholarly settings lack racial, ethnic, sex, gender, geographic, and linguistic diversity. Despite initiatives to promote more inclusive scholarly communities, the extent of implementation of policies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) remains low.Objectives: The objective is to survey the perceptions and opinions of journal editors and other stakeholders with reference to policies related to EDI and relevant practices in their journals and organizations.Methods: We sent out, through email, a link to a survey with 16 Likert-scale items and 8 open-ended questions in English to assess the perceptions of EDI. Questions were generated based on discussions at meetings of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) EDI Committee in November and December 2023. The survey was available from 8 to 30 January 2024. Snowball sampling was used among members of EASE and those of related professional organizations recruited through social networks.Results: Of the total of 232 participants, 129/232 (56%) responded on behalf of journals and 103/232 (44%) on behalf of organizations. Most (72%) considered EDI to be important or very important for their journal or organization, and even more (76%) wanted examples of existing policies and guidelines for implementing EDI. Exactly 50% (27/54) reported that their organizations have no published EDI policies, and 59% (54/91) reported the absence of an EDI statement.Conclusion: Although the survey showed wide support for EDI within journals and organizations, efforts to develop EDI policies and statements have been limited, as reflected in the responses that welcomed guidance on EDI. This suggests a need for increased awareness and knowledge-sharing about EDI policies and practices, as well as concrete actions to create a more diverse scholarly community.

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.e143790

Authors: Tom Lang

Abstract: Inclusive language is ‘language free of stereotypes, implicit bias, and negative messages’. The inclusive language movement intends to ‘acknowledge diversity, convey respect to all people, be sensitive to differences, and promote equal opportunities’. However, inclusive language is an idea or a value, not a widespread, organised effort to establish a definitive set of terms. Who decides what terms to use? What are the costs and consequences of establishing these terms? To better understand the movement, I looked at it from the perspective of diffusion theory, which seeks to explain how new products, services, and ideas are adopted (diffused) in a social system over time. The theory has identified five characteristics of successful innovations: 1) high relative advantage over alternatives, 2) high compatibility with personal and social norms, 3) low complexity in adoption and use, 4) high ‘triability’ or the chance to use the innovation before adoption, and 5) high visibility that confirms the choice of adoption. By these characteristics, many inclusive language terms face substantial barriers to widespread voluntary acceptance. These same five characteristics, however, can help inform the movement by identifying which terms are more likely to be accepted. Here, I identify where non-inclusive terms appear in the language and suggest how diffusion theory can be used to assess the likelihood of their adoption.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e148131

Authors: Diana Samuel, Mabel Chew

Abstract: N/A

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e139166

Authors: Anda-Cosmina Hângan, Andrei Ognean, Michal Orlický, Karlo Prižmić, Dorian Karuc, Hrvoje Baric

Abstract: Background: In 2016, the SAGER (sex and gender equity in research) guidelines were developed to standardize research reporting and to facilitate the generalizability of research findings for women and men, thereby impacting clinical practice.Objectives: To assess the extent to which the SAGER guidelines have been implemented in neurosurgical publications.Methods: Original research articles from leading neurosurgical journals indexed in Google Scholar under the category ‘Neurosurgery’ were examined and assessed for the extent to which the articles conformed to the SAGER guidelines. Data were extracted on subjects (sample size and relative proportions of sex or gender) and on adherence to the SAGER guidelines (one item for general principles and five items from recommendations for each section of the article) and summarized.Results: We included 98 articles from 10 leading neurosurgical journals. The average number of subjects for a journal was 4728, of which 2056 (43.5%) were women. Only nine (9.2%) of the 98 articles used the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ appropriately. The outcomes were disaggregated by sex in 16 (16.3%) articles; sex differences were acknowledged in the introduction in six (6.1%) articles; considered in the ‘Methods’ section in five (5.1%) articles; the differing numbers of women and men were justified in the methods in two (2%) articles; and the generalizability of the results to women or men was discussed in five (5.1%) articles. The journals showed no differences in the extent to which they adhered to the guidelines.Conclusions: Reporting sex and gender equity in neurosurgical journals is negligible for the most screened SAGER items as is the endorsement of the guidelines. The results likely reflect the lack of awareness of both the importance of disaggregating data by sex or gender and the existence of pertinent guidelines.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e132317

Authors: Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract: Today, 98% of peer-reviewed scientific publishing is in English, which is also the official language of most scientific events and international academic journals. UNESCO, through its Recommendation on Open Science, has called on scientific institutions to foster multilingualism in the practice of science, in scientific publications, and in academic communications. At The Lancet, we recognize the need to provide more equitable and inclusive access to scientific knowledge by providing abstracts translated into relevant languages. Following a pilot, a workflow for abstract translation was devised. I present here details of our abstract translation procedure and rollout.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e123288

Authors: Esteban Giraldo-González, Edgar García-Valencia, Juan Felipe Córdoba-Restrepo, Elea Giménez-Toledo

Abstract: Background: The project Cartografía de la Edición Académica Iberoamericana aims to analyze the production of academic books in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in the Americas. Following the path opened by similar studies in Colombia and Brazil, we present the results for Mexico.Objectives: To analyze academic books published in Mexico between 2013 and 2019 to examine the entities that published the books and their respective shares in the total output.Methods: A mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to characterize the Mexican publishers of academic books based on data on ISBNs, the International Standard Book Numbers. The data comprised the information provided to the agency that assigns a unique ISBN to each book. We also used the Delphi method and formed discussion groups of experts. The groups were set up on the basis of responses to semi-structured questionnaires that sought to determine the criteria an entity must satisfy to be considered an academic publisher.Conclusions: Of the 196 533 ISBNs issued in Mexico between 2013 and 2019, 117 929 (60%) were issued for books dealing with academic subjects. Commercial publishers accounted for the largest share of those books (63 044 ISBNs, or 53.4% of all the academic books), followed by university presses (29 628 ISBNs, or 25.1%). The group of experts suggested that among the 1289 publishers that requested ISBNs for academic books, only 151 (11.7%) can be considered truly academic publishers; 678 (52.6%) cannot; and 460 (35.7%) were borderline cases, as they meet some but not all the criteria for them to be considered truly academic.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e123908

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e129735

Authors: Ksenija Baždarić, Joan Marsh, Duncan Nicholas

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e114702

Authors: Patrizia Pezzoli, Weili Zhai, Joan Marsh, Essi Viding

Abstract: 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 concerning 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 guidelines. 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 experience 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 reviewers 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106940

Authors: Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e78084

Authors: Emma C. Leedham Elvidge

Abstract: 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’).

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89470

Authors: Olivier Pourret, Pallavi Anand, Pieter Bots, Elizabeth Cottrell, Anthony Dosseto, Ashley Gunter, David W. Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Karen Johannesson, Jabrane Labidi, Susan Little, Haiyan Liu, Tebogo Vincent Makhubela, Johanna Marin Carbonne, Alida Perez-Fodich, Amy Riches, Romain Tartèse, Aradhna Tripati

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89445

Authors: Kate Wilson

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e86910

Authors: Heather Van Epps, Olaya Astudillo, Yaiza Del Pozo Martin, Joan Marsh

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e87545

Authors: Duleeka Knipe, Rachel Jewkes

Abstract:

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.e79315

Authors: Erin Foley, Rachel Moriarty, Kerys Martin

Abstract: 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 current role 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.

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.e72187

Authors: Joseph El Khoury, Riwa Kanj, Lynn Adam, Rama Kanj, Abdul Jalil Hajaig, Firas Haddad, Rita Christie El Helou

Abstract: 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.

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.e59032

Authors: Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663

Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e61658

Authors: Randa Farah, Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Wala'a Aburumman, Dana Sakaji, Muna Alhusban, Reem Hamasha, Majd Alkhrissat, Mohammad Qablawi, Ayat Alni’mat

Abstract: 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.

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.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