Changes in annual expenses and publishing volume at eLife show it is possible to run a selective journal with a mid-range publication fee.
“The major objectives of the Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia (JBP, Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology) are to disseminate Brazilian research in the field of respiratory diseases and related areas, to expand the internationalization of the journal, and to act as one of the major sources of updates for the members of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (Brazilian Thoracic Society), increasingly reaching out to our readers. The JBP will celebrate its 45th anniversary in 2020. Since its inception, it has matured in the dissemination of knowledge by monitoring the developments and occasional events occurring in the field of pulmonology, continuing to be the leading Latin American journal in the field. The secondary and indirect objectives that should be highlighted are to increase the interest of recent graduates in the field and to promote the development of new researchers in related areas….
In Plan S,5 organized by an international coalition, as well as in presentations in various forums and publications by the SciELO Program, it has been suggested that open practices of scientific communication be adopted over the next five years. This scientific model includes open and unrestricted access to all peer-reviewed publications, acceptance of manuscripts previously deposited on a preprint server, adoption of the continuous publication modality, making all research content available in detail, and the possibility of open peer review.5-8 However, although most of the proposals put forth have been in agreement regarding open communication, which will certainly contribute to the progress of science, establish greater transparency in editorial processes, and democratize access to information, there are still certain questions about the universal adoption of this policy, even within the international scientific community, especially regarding the possibility of opening the peer review process (i.e., disclosing the identity of the reviewers to the authors). Certainly, there are advantages to an open peer review process, because it will increase the importance of the reviewers and promote a trend toward improvement of the quality of the evaluations, because all of the participants are likely to be more careful in carrying out their part in the process and to venture out of their comfort zone. However, there are potential negative aspects of this process, including a higher risk that reviewers will decline to participate in the peer review process (given that it has already been difficult to find reviewers in the various areas of knowledge using the traditional model) and a potential risk of “retaliation” by authors in the event of negative reviews regarding the manuscript in question….”
“Journal of Informetrics (JOI) was created in 2006 to serve the dynamic, interdisciplinary, and rapidly growing field of informetrics (Egghe, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2015). Leo Egghe, the founding Editor-in-Chief of JOI, attributed this growth to the increasing attraction of “scientists from fields such as mathematics, physics and computer sciences, thereby considerably increasing the number of researchers engaged in informetrics” (Egghe, 2006b, p. 4) as well as “the vast increase of the ways in which electronic information is created, distributed and used” (Egghe, 2006b, p. 3). Almost fifteen years later, the developments that Egghe observed have transformed not only the field of informetrics, but the entire scholarly dissemination ecosystem.
In 2006, green open access publishing was marginal outside of a few discrete disciplines, such as physics and mathematics, and gold and hybrid journals were still in their infancy (Piwowar et al., 2018). Scholarly publishing was just on the verge of moving from a more distributed, society-based ecosystem to one that was heavily consolidated in a few for-profit publishers (Larivière, Haustein, & Mongeon, 2015); it is no surprise that Elsevier was a natural partner for the establishment of JOI. Major publishers were heralding their ‘big deals’ to libraries and the negative financial and intellectual consequences of these deals had not yet reached a tipping point. By 2019, however, the misalignment in values between the scholarly community and large profit-driven publishers could no longer be ignored. This led to the collective resignation of the editorial board of JOI and the founding of Quantitative Science Studies (QSS).
The financial model of Elsevier has become untenable for the scientific community and, we argue, in violation of the scientific ethos. Its excessive subscription fees have caused journal cancellations across the globe—from California to Germany (SPARC, 2020)—and Elsevier’s article processing charges (APCs) for open access publishing (currently USD 2000 at JOI) do not represent a fair value for the cost. Publishing with Elsevier inevitably places major limits on scholarship: The expense of the subscription model places a restriction on who can be a reader of science, the expense of APCs restricts who can be an author. These restrictions on access are harmful to science and society….”
“In the last 10 years the number of chemistry papers published as open access has doubled, and is currently around 25% of the total…
In a growing publishing landscape in which new open access journals are launched every year, ChemistryOpen is proud to have been the first fully open?access society?owned chemistry journal, which published its first issue back at the beginning of 2012, putting us in a strong position going forward. Co?owned and supported by ChemPubSoc Europe (a consortium of 16 European chemical societies), ChemistryOpen remains fully compliant with Plan?S and global mandates and is a great choice for your next open?access publication.
ChemistryOpen has been growing tremendously over the past year. Thanks to the rising interest for open access publishing in chemistry in general, and the increased visibility of ChemistryOpen, we have received our highest yearly number of submissions to date and achieved a record?breaking number of downloads that amounted to a 60?% increase on the previous year. Volume?8 will be the journal?s largest volume so far, with over 170 papers published. A big thanks to all of our authors for sending us fascinating research from all over the world, and enabling the journal to reach a strong position in the ever changing and expanding publishing landscape. We are ready to welcome the new publishing year 2020 with optimism and enthusiasm!…”
Abstract: A reproducibility crisis is a situation where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced. Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing, p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, I propose that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility.
As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.
Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results and to increase public trust in science.
“The ACS is eager to assist. ACS has now developed a data packaging tool to assist authors in zipping their FID files, acquisition data, and processing parameters along with other appropriate FAIR metadata such as a SMILES or InChI for submission. This tool can be found at ACS Research Data Center, is free for any researcher to use, and includes instructions for authors on how to upload their data. In addition, author guidelines at The Journal of Organic Chemistry and Organic Letters offer details on how to zip and submit your data (see Primary NMR Data Files under the Supporting Information heading). All zipped files of data should be uploaded as ‘Supporting Information for Publication’. Along with the zipped files of NMR data, original Elemental Analysis, HRMS, or IR reports are also encouraged and can be included as “Supporting Information for Publication’.
Including data alongside a publication has many benefits for authors, editors, reviewers, and readers. For authors, it will help in compliance with data-management plans and any funder requirements that data be made publicly available. The data will be citable and can be included in grant applications or updates to funders. Readily available data can provide a needed service to the community, much like reviewing, and will improve archiving for the long-term benefit of the scientific community. As an incentive, participating ACS publications identified with FAIR data will include a note in the PDF and HTML that FAIR data is available.
For editors and reviewers, it is valuable to have consistent quality of NMR and other data during the review process. While incidents of unethical behavior are rare, uploading original data can increase safeguarding against fraudulent or manipulated data. Providing data alongside a submission reduces requests from the editorial office for original FID data, for example, when the images uploaded in the SI are of inadequate resolution or appear to be manipulated.
For readers, access to primary data files allows for easy and direct comparison to published results. This is helpful when reproducing published work, specifically, to have the ability to evaluate compound purity, as well as zoom, integrate, and interact with the spectra….”
“A first year as a journal is a major milestone, and one that would not be possible without your continued support. This anniversary for JAMIA Open coincides with a remembrance of Don Lindberg, who left us suddenly in late August 2019. Don was a major crusader for open access to biomedical research. He was firm in his view that access to knowledge was the core element to inspire innovation….
As an Open Access journal, JAMIA Open is, by definition, a strong supporter of open access to science. But such a view would not have been possible without visionaries like Don. A major goal of Open Access is to support the ability for those outside the research community to access information. The engagement outside the research community should be viewed as an essential goal for biomedical research and health care. In the coming year, you will see enhancements to JAMIA Open publications that are designed to promote patient engagement….”
The British Institute of Radiology (BIR) receives more than 50% of its income from its publishing programme, vital to support its educational, outreach, and advocacy work.
Radiology has been very slow to adopt open access publishing, mostly because of the paucity of funding in the field – representing only c.5% of articles in the BIR flagship journal.
Small independent society publishers can be more flexible than larger publishers but rely on networks of support from associations and other societies and reliable suppliers.
Society publishers have a ready?made community of readers and authors who value the work of the organization and its publications….”
“In year 2020, the Annals enters 25th year of publishing scientific manuscripts: original papers, review articles, and case reports focused on noninvasive electrocardiology. During recent years, we have witnessed transformation of interests toward digital computerized assessment of ECG recordings and increasing use of innovative technologies monitoring ECG signal using different devices such as watches, patches, and other monitoring systems. Our journal became digital few years ago, and now in 2020, we enter the new era of Open Access journal in the spirit of easy access and widespread dissemination of scientific content of the journal. Starting from 2020, all papers published in the Annals will be fully accessible to readers all over the world following current increasing trends of widespread and unrestricted public access to scientific information….”
Abstract: The FEBS Journal, a leading multidisciplinary journal in the life sciences, continues to grow in visibility and impact. Here, Editor?in?Chief Seamus Martin discusses the potential impact of the ‘author pays’ publishing model on research quality, and some of the highlights at the journal over the past year.