“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….”
Abstract: BMC Medicine was launched in November 2003 as an open access, open peer-reviewed general medical journal that has a broad remit to publish “outstanding and influential research in all areas of clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities”. Here, I discuss the last 15?years of epidemiological research published by BMC Medicine, with a specific focus on how this reflects changes occurring in the field of epidemiology over this period; the impact of ‘Big Data’; the reinvigoration of debates about causality; and, as we increasingly work across and with many diverse disciplines, the use of the name ‘population health science’. Reviewing all publications from the first volume to the end of 2018, I show that most BMC Medicine papers are epidemiological in nature, and the majority of them are applied epidemiology, with few methodological papers. Good research must address important translational questions that should not be driven by the increasing availability of data, but should take appropriate advantage of it. Over the next 15?years it would be good to see more publications that integrate results from several different methods, each with different sources of bias, in a triangulation framework.
Abstract: Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing them. We consider 531,889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC which are part of the PubMed Open Access collection, categorize their data availability statements according to their content and analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements have become common by now, yet statements containing a link to a repository are still just a fraction of the total. We also find that articles with these statements, in particular, can have up to 25.36% higher citation impact on average: an encouraging result for all publishers and authors who make the effort of sharing their data. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.
“That’s why we’ve created a new service, In Review. Powered by Research Square, In Review offers authors a personal dashboard to easily track the status of their manuscript, and the opportunity to share it with the wider community earlier in the submission and peer review process. In the first instance, this service will be available across four BMC journals….
By using In Review authors will be able to:
Share their work while it is under review and engage the wider community in discussion (through the Hypothes.is open annotation tool)
Track the status of their manuscript on a more granular level – including number of reviewers invited, number of reports received, and immediate access to reviewer reports
Demonstrate the integrity of their work with a transparent editorial checklist
Benefit from early sharing, including potential for earlier citations and collaboration opportunities…”
Following is a summary of recent APC changes for 4 publishers, prepared on request but posted in case this might be of interest to anyone else. In brief, each publisher appears to be following a different pricing strategy ranging from flat pricing over many years with one rare exception, to a tenfold increase from 2016 – 2017.
“BioMed Central celebrated its 15th anniversary in 2015, with many successes and innovations along the way. We’ve selected just a few highlights from the history of BioMed Central, some milestones for open access publishing and landmarks in open access policy. …”
“The open access (OA) movement has had some big wins this year: In July , a cross-party group of British politicians called on the U.K. government to make all publicly funded research accessible to everyone “free of charge, online.” That same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that all NIH-funded research be made freely available 6 months after publication. But where did the OA movement come from, and where is it taking us? …”
“From close-ups that capture the animated life of insects, to aerial views of vast landscapes, the 2017 BMC Ecology Image Competition has produced a terrific array of images that reflect the variety of research in progress in the field. All images are open access and available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.”
On behalf of the Editorial Board, welcome to the new Italian Journal of Pediatrics, the official journal of the ISP/SIP (Italian Society of Pediatrics/Società Italiana di Pediatria), now publishing on BioMed Central’s open access publishing platform. The move to BioMed Central will benefit authors by having their manuscripts published faster with rapid global dissemination. Readers will also benefit from free online access to the journal via the website and a range of full text archives.
“The main purposes of the Associate Publisher role is to: Assist with the development and execution of a strategic plan for the Biological Sciences portfolio Assist with journal and team budgeting (including but not limited to honoraria, travel, and staffing) Assist with the development and execution of a strategic plan for growth of BioMed Central in key markets….”