
<rss version="0.91">
    <channel>
        <title>Latest Articles from European Science Editing</title>
        <description>Latest 11 Articles from European Science Editing</description>
        <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 6 Jun 2026 22:45:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Pensoft FeedCreator</generator>
        
	
		<item>
		    <title>Visibility and research impact of Bulgarian geographers: insights from indexing databases and social media platforms</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/120210/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 51: e120210</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e120210</p>
					<p>Authors: Hristina Prodanova, Stelian Dimitrov</p>
					<p>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 &ndash; the University of Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen University &ndash; were visible mostly on ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Overall visibility of each institution on social media was very low (8%&ndash;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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/120210/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/120210/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Publishers’ and editors’ perceptions of equity, diversity, and inclusion: A cross-sectional study of European Association of Science Editors’ community</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/142485/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 51: e142485</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e142485</p>
					<p>Authors: Shelly Melissa Pranić, Ana Heredia, Charikleia Tzanakou, Pavel Ovseiko, Kate Wilson, Diana Samuel, Christina Kassiteridi</p>
					<p>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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/142485/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/142485/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 09:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Enhancing the accessibility of science at The Lancet with native language abstracts</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/132317/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 50: e132317</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e132317</p>
					<p>Authors: Christopher H. Wortley</p>
					<p>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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/132317/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/132317/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Viewpoint</category>
		    <pubDate>Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Publishers and production of academic books in Mexico: 2013-2019.</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123288/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 50: e123288</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e123288</p>
					<p>Authors: Esteban Giraldo-González, Edgar García-Valencia, Juan Felipe Córdoba-Restrepo, Elea Giménez-Toledo</p>
					<p>Abstract: Background: The project Cartograf&iacute;a de la Edici&oacute;n Acad&eacute;mica 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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123288/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/123288/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Acknowledging tribal affiliations in medical research</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 49: e106940</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106940</p>
					<p>Authors: Christopher H. Wortley</p>
					<p>Abstract: </p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Correspondence</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Gender balance and geographical diversity in editorial boards of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta and Chemical Geology</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 48: e89470</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89470</p>
					<p>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</p>
					<p>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 &ndash; Meteoritical Society partnership.Methods: The composition of editorial boards was ascertained as given in the first issue of each year, over 1965&ndash;2021 for Chemical Geology and 1950&ndash;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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Country information in titles – equality or equity</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 48: e89445</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89445</p>
					<p>Authors: Kate Wilson</p>
					<p>Abstract: </p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Correspondence</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>The contribution of authors from low- and middle-income countries to top-tier mental health journals</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 47: e72187</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e72187</p>
					<p>Authors: Joseph El Khoury, Riwa Kanj, Lynn Adam, Rama Kanj, Abdul Jalil Hajaig, Firas Haddad, Rita Christie El Helou</p>
					<p>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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 47: e59032</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e59032</p>
					<p>Authors: Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret</p>
					<p>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 &lsquo;earth sciences&rsquo; 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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences </title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 47: e63663</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663</p>
					<p>Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant</p>
					<p>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%&ndash;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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Obstacles to health care research projects at the University of Jordan: a cross-sectional survey</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 47: e61658</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e61658</p>
					<p>Authors: Randa Farah, Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Wala'a Aburumman, Dana Sakaji, Muna Alhusban, Reem Hamasha, Majd Alkhrissat, Mohammad Qablawi, Ayat Alni’mat</p>
					<p>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 (&plusmn;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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/">HTML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/download/xml/">XML</a></p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>
	