Search

Purpose: By distorting the peer review process, predatory journals lure researchers and collect article processing charges (APCs) to earn income, thereby threatening clinical decisions. This study aims to identifying the characteristics of predatory publishing in the dermatology literature. Design/methodology/approach: The authors used Kscien's list to detect dermatology-related predatory journals. Bibliometric parameters were analyzed at the level of journals, publishers, documents and authors. Findings: Sixty-one potential predatory dermatology publishers published 4,164 articles in 57 journals from 2000 to 2020, with most publishers claiming to be located in the United States. Most journals were 1–5 years old. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, two in Scopus and 43 in Google Scholar (GS). The average APC was 1,049 USD. Skin, patient, cutaneous, psoriasis, dermatitis and acne were the most frequently used keywords in the article's title. A total of 1,146 articles in GS received 4,725 citations. More than half of the journals had <10 citations. Also, 318 articles in Web of Science were contaminated by the most cited articles and 4.49% of the articles had reported their funding source. The average number of authors per article was 3.7. India, the United States and Japan had the most articles from 119 involved countries. Asia, Europe and North America had the most contributed authors; 5.2% of articles were written through international collaboration. A majority of authors were from high- and low-middle-income countries. Women contributed 43.57% and 39.66% as the first and corresponding authors, respectively. Research limitations/implications: The study had limitations, including heavy reliance on Kscien's list, potential for human error in manual data extraction and nonseparation of types of articles. Journals that only published dermatology articles were reviewed, so those occasionally publishing dermatology articles were missed. Predatory journals covering multiple subjects (Petrisor, 2016) may have resulted in overlooking some dermatology papers. This study did not claim to have covered all articles in predatory dermatology journals (PDJs) but evaluated many of them. The authors accept the claim that Kscien's list may have made a mistake in including journals. Originality/value: The wide dispersion of authors involved in PDJs highlights the need to increase awareness among these authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research publication is an important aspect of academic life as it aids in career progression. A high volume of publications by Indian authors is found in questionable journals. In 2020, the National Medical Commission (NMC) of India modified the list of accepted bibliographic databases, with one significant change being the exclusion of Index Copernicus. Our research question focused on whether this change had any impact on the publication patterns in questionable journals. Aim: This study aimed to observe the number of publications in the questionable journal before and after the change in the accepted database by the NMC. Methods: We prepared a final list of 12 questionable journals using extensive criteria to classify a journal as questionable. The journal issues from 2015 to 2022 were scrutinized to determine the number of original research articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, editorials, and letters to the editor. Results: There was a gradual increase in the percentage of publications from 2015 to 2018, followed by a plateau that lasted for three years (2018-2020). However, there was a sudden decrease in publication numbers in 2021, reaching its lowest point in 2022 (χ2 [7] = 658.2, P < 0.0001). The majority of the articles were original research articles (94.54%), while only 3.27% of publications consisted of case reports and 1.45% were review articles. It is noteworthy that none of the journals published any editorials or letters to the editor. Conclusion: A change in the accepted bibliographical database by the NMC may be one of the reasons for the decline in publications in questionable journals. It is important for stakeholders to prioritize the promotion of sound research output from medical institutions rather than solely focusing on the number of publications. In this article, we have presented a holistic approach to address this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The evolving landscape of the academic world has ushered in a plethora of challenges and opportunities for researchers. While there are undoubtedly monetary incentives and fringe benefits for those who actively engage in publishing, the journey toward acceptance by a premier journal is often arduous and time‐consuming. Considering this context, this paper endeavors to dissect prevailing trends, elucidate the reasons behind manuscript rejections, and furnish a compendium of strategies and insights aimed at augmenting the likelihood of acceptance while mitigating the probability of rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lists of endorsed and discouraged scholarly publications recently emerged as an important transition in Chinese journal evaluation. Among the targeted users of these lists are researchers, who are to avoid publishing in discouraged journals and focus efforts on endorsed journals. However, it is unclear how these lists affect researchers' valuations when choosing publication outlets. This explorative study investigates the reception of such journal lists in Chinese scientists' research practices. Our findings suggest that three logics interact in respondents' journal valuations: institutional evaluation regimes, differing epistemic cultures, and the influence of the commercial publishing industry. The reactive effects of both endorsed and discouraged journal lists appear to differ with the ranking status of universities, the seniority of scholars, and research fields. Apart from the new institutional evaluation regimes in this interplay, there appear to be more predominant factors than journal lists that inform publishing choices: quantitative indicators, publishers' branding, epistemic cultures, and editorial procedures and publishing models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents a reflection on the years in which the author was editor-in-chief of "Plura, Revista de Estudos de Religião", the journal of the Brazilian Association for the History of Religions (ABHR). The text is divided into two parts. In the first, memories of the processes and experiences of editing the journal are organised. In the second, notes are listed, seeking a critical and creative reflection on editorial processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Grafica: Journal of Graphic Design / Documents de Disseny Gràfic is the property of Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The research aims to evaluate the publication of scholarly journals in Lithuania, a small-language country, by analyzing the owners and publishers of scholarly journals. The results show that, since 1990, the publishing of Lithuanian scholarly journals has grown significantly: 225 scholarly journals were published in Lithuania by 73 different publishers in 2020. Social publishers, mostly state-funded universities, scientific institutes and colleges still held the largest market share of scholarly journals, but commercial publishers also appeared and started to make a business out of publishing scholarly journals. The analyzed data on publishers show that Lithuanian publishers have tried to take over and reorganize a number of scholarly journals from the Soviet era, while adapting to the dynamically changing world of scholarly publishing and moving from simple product sales models of the twentieth century to new digital ecosystems of the twenty-first-century age in which the essential distribution of publications is carried out digitally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "A VEA Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model for the HDI" published in the journal Social Indicators Research. The correction addresses incorrect values in Table 6 of the original article and provides the corrected table. The table presents the results of the F1 and F2 tests, comparing the efficiency distributions of various VEA models. It includes rankings for different countries and regions, such as Norway, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Qatar, with stars indicating the statistical significance of the results. The publisher, Springer Nature, remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Significance of nanoparticle radius on EMHD Casson blood-gold nanomaterial flow with non-uniform heat source and Arrhenius kinetics" published in the Journal of Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry. The correction states that figures 1-18 in the original publication were published incorrectly due to a typesetter's mistake, and the corrected figures are provided in this correction article. Additionally, there is a correction to the first sentence in the abstract. The original article has been corrected. The document also includes a note from the publisher stating that Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. [Extracted from the article]

Medical journal publishing has changed dramatically over the past decade. The shift from print to electronic distribution altered the industry's economic model. This was followed by open access mandates from funding organizations and the subsequent imposition of article processing charges on authors. The medical publishing industry is large and while there is variation across journals, it is overall highly profitable. As journals have moved to digital dissemination, advertising revenues decreased and publishers shifted some of the losses onto authors by way of article processing charges. The number of open access journals has increased substantially in recent years. The open access model presents an equity paradox; while it liberates scientific knowledge for the consumer, it presents barriers to those who produce research. This emerging "pay-to-publish" system offers advantages to authors who work in countries and at institutes with more resources. Finally, the medical publishing industry represents an unusual business model; the people who provide both the content and the external peer review receive no payment from the publisher, who generates revenue from the content. The very unusual economic model of this industry makes it vulnerable to disruptive change. The economic model of medical publishing is rapidly evolving and this will lead to disruption of the industry. These changes will accelerate dissemination of science and may lead to a shift away from lower-impact journals towards pre-print servers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Española de Documentación Científica is the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by 'grey' open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to draw the attention and awareness among the global research and scientific community towards the research journal publishing industry, which more or less is working as a pilfer and has monopolised the journal publishing industry to suit their commercial interests. On one hand the global research and scientific community continues to strive harder to come up with better research findings with the sole purpose to enhance the ease of living in all walks of life by disseminating the same among the end users free of cost, while on the other hand, the big research journal publishing houses have hijacked the industry by turning it into a money minting machine. Researchers are fleeced of their hard earned money by the publishers in the name of Article Processing Charges (APCs) which run anything from USD 1000 to USD 6000 and beyond per publication. Given the ever escalating subscription costs, associated with academic and research institutions find it difficult to subscribe journals for their user. Onus lies with all the stakeholders be it government, researchers, academicians and the end users as well, who can't watch all this happening helplessly from a distance and not putting in any effort to overcome this problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studii de Ştiintă şi Cultură is the property of Studii de Stiinta si Cultura and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As the COVID-19 pandemic prevails, research related to COVID-19 has spread beyond medicine, health science, and biology to almost all academic fields. Library and information science is one of the most active fields that publish COVID-19-related research papers. This study examined 696 research papers related to COVID-19 whose journal being categorized as "information science & library science" by Web of Science. The result of bibliometric analysis showed that the publications were active and on the rise. Most papers were published in English and produced in the United States. According to the keyword clustering map produced by semantic network analysis, two fields, bibliometrics and health communication, were publishing research papers related to COVID-19 most actively. Moreover, the most productive journal was a library and information science journal focusing on health informatics. Additionally, a tendency was found that researchers preferred to publish on journals with high impact factors. Compared with non-COVID-19-related research papers, there was a significant decrease of "time for acceptance" of COVID-19-related papers, and the proportion of open access was relatively high. Confronting the global crisis of COVID-19, the library and information science field also made efforts and challenges to resolve the slow peer-review, delayed publishing, and high paywalls, which have been recognized as a "chronic diseases" of the academic publishing ecosystem. It is expected that these endeavors can serve as a turning point to reconsider and innovate the traditional research-publishing lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to analyze the development of global human resource development (HRD) articles published in journals indexed in the Scopus database since 1960s until present time. Design/methodology/approach: A publication collection of 1,905 articles collected from the Scopus database was downloaded and analyzed by using bibliometric techniques available in the VOSviewer and Biblioshiny software. Findings: Three different development stages of HRD research have been identified: a seeding stage between 1962 and 1989, a growth stage between 1990 and 2007 and a development stage from 2008 onward. The USA and the UK were the biggest contributors who participated to 30.02% and 12.55% of articles in the collection and received 43.82% and 19.54% of the total number of citations, respectively. Scholars with the most publications and citations are mostly from the USA and the UK, and nine over ten most cited articles having first author's affiliation located there. Emerald Group is the most popular publishing house, as five over ten most popular journals belong to this publishing house. Originality/value: After six decades of development, it is necessary to examine the evolution of HRD research, its characteristics and its intellectual framework as this type of analysis is not yet available in the literature. This study helps scholars better understand this research field, as well as better prepare for future work in HRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many important results were achieved in ecolinguistic studies in 2022. This article reviews ecolinguistic studies in 2022, which aims to shed light on the future research directions. It consists of two main themes. First, studies are reviewed in terms of research areas, conferences, monographs, and journals. Then, based on the above results, issues are summarized and trends are predicted for the next phase of ecolinguistic studies. The review shows that the research scope of ecolinguistics has gradually developed from micro to macro. In addition, many academic conferences on ecological issues were held worldwide, and several publishing houses and journals published dedicated volumes and issues on ecolinguistics. It is suggested that ecolinguistic studies in the future should pay attention to the following points: continuing to emphasize the significance of ecolinguistics in the framework of linguistics, clarifying the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary attributes of ecolinguistics, and strengthening inquiries into issues such as ecological literacy, ecological awareness, and ecosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. Methods: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Results: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. Conclusions: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Bilevel modeling investigated generative adversarial framework for image restoration" published in the journal Visual Computer. The correction states that there were mistakes in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the original article, and provides corrected versions of these figures. The corrected figures show visual comparisons between the proposed method and other state-of-the-art image deconvolution and deraining methods, demonstrating the superiority of the proposed method. The correction notice also includes a note from the publisher stating their neutrality regarding jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. [Extracted from the article]

The academic publishing model is very inequitable currently – most commercial publishers demand exorbitant prices for access to journal articles, either through subscription or article processing charges. In this digital era, when publishing costs are negligible, and the peer review process is voluntary, it is unreasonable to have such high access barriers. In this article, we have explored the idea of an accessible and equitable knowledge dissemination platform using next-generation technologies and emerging models in publication to challenge the commercial publishers' oligopoly in knowledge dissemination. Some of the upcoming practices, open peer review systems, transparent research data practices, and finally leveraging the advancements in digital technologies in publishing can be effective in creating efficient, transparent and cost-effective publishing systems. Encouraged by these recent developments, we have explored the possibilities of launching a digital publishing platform in India. We have analysed the existing open-source technologies like Open Journal System (OJS) and compared them with proprietary models like Editorial Manager to understand the gaps in both and explored avenues to conceive a cost-effective digital publishing platform. We hope that the open-access digital publishing platform will help the Indian journals upgrade their publishing systems up to the international standard, if not better, and help researchers explore a non-commercial avenue to publish open access articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to examine the profit-driven approach utilized by global media conglomerates and explore how trade-offs, such as human capital and a decrease in the diversity of cultural voices may accompany such strategies. This research uses Marxist theory and other concepts found in media economics and magazine management literature to examine the last six years of mergers and acquisitions by US-based media conglomerates. Although this study employs analytics used by American publishers for American titles, this research is not confined by national borders. Indeed, its scope tacitly includes the wider marketplace of international publishing and acquisitions. The goal of this analysis is to provide a contextual snapshot of the magazine industry as it navigates pronounced institutional changes and to posit the possible outcomes associated with such adjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twenty-five years ago, it was claimed that only two articles existed in missiological journals that directly considered children and mission together. This article updates and systematizes that research, analyzing the results in English-language publications decade-by-decade in conversation with other trends to better understand and engage with children and young people in the church, in the world, and in the academy. It observes that the number and quality of missiological research and writing related to children and mission in academic journals has greatly expanded over the past decades, even if there is room for further growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic book and journal publishing constitutes the majority focus of university presses. Besides commercial scholarly publishers, academic scholars and researchers view the opportunities provided by university presses as important venues for the dissemination of their research. This discussion focuses on the disciplinary imperative to publish scholarship that is ever more fluid and specialized as academic disciplines continue to become further nuanced in their response to the increasing knowledge produced by humanities and social science inquiry. The focus is on university presses and not commercial scholarly presses, although constitute a significant locus of scholarly publishing. What are the general characteristics of academic specialization and university press publishing? Further, how is disciplinary fluidity, especially evolving specialization, reflected in university press book publishing nomenclature and how scholarship is tied to the intellectual preoccupations of academic specialization? Multi‐ and inter‐disciplinarities further articulate disciplinary publishing, accelerating disciplinary fluidity. Examples from disciplinary and emerging configurations of disciplinary nomenclature utilized by university presses offers insight into specialization and publishing. Academic history publishing is used to illustrate newly emerging fluid disciplinary configurations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Family Journal (TFJ) has experienced increases in manuscripts submitted for publication, especially from international scholars and quantitative researchers. This reverses a previous trend to publish more practice-oriented articles for our clinical readership. The journal will take efforts to balance theory, research, and practice. Some manuscripts are rejected for distribution to the editorial board (or "unsubmitted") due to problems conforming to the APA Publication Manual 7th Edition guidelines. Some submissions would benefit from reviews by colleagues and securing the services of an editor. Authors are asked to attend to guidelines concerning levels of headings and formatting of citations and references. Most importantly, authors should follow bias-free language guidelines. There are additional considerations in the desk review process such as including practice implications for Marriage and Family Counselors in the article and incorporating relevant previously published articles from TFJ in the literature review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Letonica is the property of University of Latvia, Institute of Literature, Folklore & Art and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Around 170 early career researchers (ECRs) from 8 countries were interviewed about the whole range of their scholarly communication attitudes/behaviours during pandemic times and this paper analyses what they said about predatory journals in a wide range of scholarly communication contexts. Because of the delicacy of the topic there was just one question exclusively directed at predatory journals, which asked about policies rather than actions, which yielded nevertheless wide-ranging comments on the topic. ECRs also volunteered information on predatory journals in another half dozen questions, most notably including one on questionable research practices. The source of data was mainly the final interview of three undertaken, with some comparisons made to rounds one and two. Findings disclose the existence of a whole raft of formal and informal assessment policies/codes that direct ECRs to legitimate journals and away from predatory ones. Despite being junior, ECRs are very accultured to the criteria of what is considered as prestige and quality and believe predatory publishing is not even conceivable. They are far more concerned about low-quality research, preprints and borderline 'grey' journals. The pandemic has increased the level of questionable practices and low-quality research, but predatory journals were only singled out by a relatively small number of ECRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is an integral part of contemporary scholarly publishing, especially journal publishing. Work submitted by scholars from all parts of the world is subjected to it. This includes submissions by scholars from the Global South, who wish to publish in “international” journals or in local journals which follow the same model. These authors may not be native English speakers and may be unfamiliar with the conventions of Western scholarship. Many of them conduct research and write their manuscripts under challenging circumstances. They may find it difficult to comply with the requirements of the journals to which they submit their articles. Their manuscripts quite often pose challenges to the peer reviewers. The purpose of this article is to provide some background on scholarly publishing in the Global South and the challenges those colleagues face, and to outline what this may mean for the role of the reviewer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing is currently a critical problem for researchers, particularly with the continuous rise of online journals and the increasing challenge of distinguishing between journals that can be trusted and those which should be avoided. This article begins by providing an overview of predatory publishing, focusing specifically on its definition and impacts and the prevailing predatory practices current in scientific publications. Next, the article discusses how researchers can avoid publishing with predatory publishers. We recommend that researchers do not rely solely on watchlists, rather that they develop their own skills to enable them to detect predatory practices. Finally, the article provides some practical recommendations and resources for researchers to use to assess journals as publishing venues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuadernos para Investigacion de la Literatura Hispanica is the property of Fundacion Universitaria Espanola and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Publish and Read mandates being promoted by the Europeans through OA2020 and Plan S, are making significant impacts on journal publishing. Although libraries in the United States have expressed concern about some elements of the proposals, larger forces have engaged which may flip the traditional subscription-based journal publishing system. Challenges and opportunities for libraries, publishers, and authors will create an unsettled market in the next few years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: How to obtain a list of the 100 largest scientific publishers sorted by journal count? Existing databases are unhelpful as each of them inhere biased omissions and data quality flaws. This paper tries to fill this gap with an alternative approach. Design/methodology/approach: The content coverages of Scopus, Publons, DOAJ and SherpaRomeo were first used to extract a preliminary list of publishers that supposedly possess at least 15 journals. Second, the publishers' websites were scraped to fetch their portfolios and, thus, their "true" journal counts. Findings: The outcome is a list of the 100 largest publishers comprising 28.060 scholarly journals, with the largest publishing 3.763 journals, and the smallest carrying 76 titles. The usual "oligopoly" of major publishing companies leads the list, but it also contains 17 university presses from the Global South, and, surprisingly, 31 predatory publishers that together publish 4.606 journals. Research limitations/implications: Additional data sources could be used to mitigate remaining biases; it is difficult to disambiguate publisher names and their imprints; and the dataset carries a non-uniform distribution, thus risking the omission of data points in the lower range. Practical implications: The dataset can serve as a useful basis for comprehensive meta-scientific surveys on the publisher-level. Originality/value: The catalogue can be deemed more inclusive and diverse than other ones because many of the publishers would have been overlooked if one had drawn from merely one or two sources. The list is freely accessible and invites regular updates. The approach used here (webscraping) has seldomly been used in meta-scientific surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before Superman first made the world believe a man can fly or Captain America greeted Hitler with a punch to the face, comic book publishers sought to exercise command over all the characters and stories that writers and artists put to paper. Until recently, this one-sided industry culture regarding ownership--reinforced by decades of court rulings in publishers' favor--left creators with few avenues by which to retain control of their art. The legal norms that enforced creators' subservient position in the comic book copyright ecosystem drove these authors to seek out and construct alternative systems from which they could realize the benefits of ownership. This Note first shows that creators' resistance to copyright inequity has been the chief factor driving innovations in the comic book industry over the past eighty years. Where creators were once almost entirely dependent on major publishers for work, the alternative systems developed in response to this inequity have enabled writers and artists to negotiate with publishers on equal footing and often from a position of power. The Note then weighs the benefits and drawbacks of modern routes available for publishing creator-owned comics, with a focus on the frontier of Substack newsletters' noncopyright system, which for the first time offers some creators the "industry-changing" opportunity to receive up-front payment while also retaining ownership of their works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals Cell and Cell Reports and 6,785 manuscripts submitted in 2018 to 47 journals published by the Institute of Physics Publishing. Following previous work that found that a balance of novel and conventional ideas predicts citation impact, we measure the novelty and conventionality of manuscripts by the atypicality of combinations of journals in their reference lists, taking the 90th percentile most atypical combination as “novelty” and the 50th percentile as “conventionality.” We find that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance; submissions in the top novelty quintile are 6.5 percentage points more likely than bottom quintile ones to get accepted. Higher conventionality is also associated with acceptance (+16.3% top–bottom quintile difference). Disagreement among peer reviewers was not systematically related to submission novelty or conventionality, and editors select strongly for novelty even conditional on reviewers’ recommendations (+7.0% top–bottom quintile difference). Manuscripts exhibiting higher novelty were more highly cited. Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents periodicals in the field of library and information science published between 2017 and 2021. The journals dealing with the field as their main or major topic were reviewed, as well as those that have established sections dedicated to librarianship, but are focused on other areas. The analysis is based on the research of sources via COBIB.SR database, and the titles with the hit of at least one issue published during the period 2017-2021 were included. The titles of serial publication available in the collection of the National Library of Serbia were reviewed, as well as those available online. The paper examines the current situation of the professional publishing and its importance for the development of the scientific discipline and practice. At the same time, journals addressing library practice along with other areas were analyzed – literature, arts, history and local topics. The text is an effort to examine the current trends related to publishing periodicals dealing with the theory and practice of librarianship. The results show that the number of scientific journals in 2021 increased compared to the previous period. However, significant number of serial publications issued during the analyzed period belongs to the group of professional magazines dealing with librarianship as their main or major topic. Overall, the analysis of Serbian periodicals on subjects related to library and information activities in the past period shows that they acted as means for active participation in scientific communication, exchange of professional experiences, and promotion of libraries. Also, it shows that their publishers paid great attention to recognizing and fulfilling the needs of the communities in which they operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars engage with so‐called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs and the possibility of fast track faculty positions or promotion. It has been claimed that fast tracking promotion by using predatory publication outlets is an increasing problem. This study analyses the authors publishing in predatory journals with a focus on authors repeatedly publishing in predatory journals. In this study, a set of so‐called predatory journals indexed in Scopus was used. The data included 243,396 authorships of articles and reviews published from 2004 to 2021 by 169,742 unique authors. This study finds that 55% of the authors publish in one of these journals only once, 34.5% publish 2–5 times in these journals, 6.3% publish in them 6–10 times, and 4.2% publish more than 10 times. Furthermore, this study finds that the mean and median number of articles and reviews is correlated with the number of articles and reviews in predatory journals. Finally, authors publishing in predatory journals do not confine themselves to these journals and also publish in validated journals as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although interest in publishing studies is increasing, the academic status of PS is still uncertain. The aim of this work is to provide insight into the structure of the field by naming its core journals, determining the size of the research community and degree of collaboration, identifying the most relevant authors and institutions and answering the question as to whether PS is more academically or professionally oriented. This paper uses Scopus data and VOSviewer software to illustrate similarities between journals, authors and countries based on bibliographic coupling, co‐authorship, citation and co‐citation analysis. Eight journals representing various publishing sectors (trade, education, scholarly and professional publishing) were identified as the main sources of PS articles. They differ in their frequency of publication, number of citations, visibility in bibliographic databases, the percentage of co‐authored articles and the affiliation structure of the authors. Nine percent of authors out of 3370 unique authors form the publishing studies research community, with 1%–3% being identified as the key authors. The researchers worked mainly alone or in collaboration with one or two partners. Analysis of the authors' affiliations and a co‐citation analysis of source titles confirm strong PS research connections with the publishing industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences. The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower‐middle and upper‐middle‐income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high‐income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bohemistyka is the property of Instytut Filologii Slowianskiej Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)