BMC Medicine editorial board members on open access publishing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Carmont MR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3897970 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Twenty years ago, on October 23, the first article published by BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders appeared free online. Over 5700 publications later, we celebrate our anniversary as the largest Open Access journal in the 'Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine' and 'Rheumatology' fields. Our 'open, inclusive, and trusted' ethos, along with our efficient and robust peer review services, are recognized by the musculoskeletal field.The early pioneers of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders pushed the Open Access publishing model, in order to better support the needs of both the clinical and research communities. We pride ourselves on the continual innovation of author services, data transparency, and peer review models. These advances would not have been possible without your efforts - so a massive thank you to all the authors, editorial teams, and reviewers who have contributed to our success. Excellent reviewers are the nucleus of any thriving journal, and we have been lucky to collaborate with so many talents.
| S-EPMC7680582 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1403253 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC555877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PLOS and the PLOS Medicine team would like to express our appreciation to the academic editors, guest editors, and reviewers who contributed to the peer-review process in 2017.
| S-EPMC5854231 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5358730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access. Methods:This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing. Results:The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy. Conclusions:While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
| S-EPMC6919981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals.DesignSemistructured telephone interviews.Participants28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003.ResultsAuthors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors.ConclusionsAuthors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.
| S-EPMC555876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action "DARTER", a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of "negative" results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.
| S-EPMC8215407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.
| S-EPMC7048123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBecause women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted.ObjectivesTo investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient.Main outcomes and measuresThe h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication.ResultsOf the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [IQR, 19-40], P < .001; male vs female societies: 27 [IQR, 15-41] vs 17 [IQR, 8-32], P = .006), median publication numbers (male vs female journal board members: 157 [IQR, 88-254] vs 109 [IQR, 66-188], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 109 [IQR, 57-190] vs 58 [IQR, 28-139, P = .001), and median citations (male vs female journal board members: 4027 [IQR, 1897-8005] vs 2871 [IQR, 1344-5852], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 2228 [IQR, 1005-5069] vs 1090 [IQR, 410-2527], P = .003). However, the median m-quotients for male and female board members were comparable (male vs female journal board members: 1.2 [IQR, 0.8-1.6] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.8-1.5], P = .54; male vs female society board members: 1.0 [IQR, 0.7-1.4] vs 0.9 [IQR, 0.6-1.3], P = .32).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that the sex composition on journal editorial and professional society boards in ophthalmology is consistent with the sex composition of ophthalmologists in the US, as reported by the Association of American Colleges, but that editor in chief and society president positions are male dominated despite the apparent equality in academic productivity.
| S-EPMC7099467 | biostudies-literature