Search

The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

Images play a vital role in the publication and presentation of clinical and scientific work. Within clinical photography, color reproduction has always been a contentious issue. With the development of new technologies, the variables affecting color reproduction have changed, and photographers have moved away from film-based to digital photographic imaging systems. To develop an understanding of color, knowledge about the basic principles of light and vision is important. An object's color is determined by which wavelengths of light it reflects. Colors of light and colors of pigment behave differently. Due to technical limitations, monitors and printers are unable to reproduce all the colors we can see with our eyes, also called the LAB color space. In order to optimize the output of digital clinical images, color management solutions need to be integrated in the photographic workflow; however, their use is still limited in the medical field. As described in part 2 of this article, calibrating your computer monitor and using an 18% gray background card are easy ways to enable more consistent color reproduction for publication. In addition, some basic information about the various camera settings is given to facilitate the use of this new digital equipment in daily practice.

Background: The trends in medical publishing are towards electronic versions and the use of the English language. The objective of this study was to compare general practitioners' ability to retain information when reading on paper versus on screen, and in their mother tongue versus in the English., Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trial of 114 Scandinavian general practitioners. They read a review article for 10 minutes either on paper/in English, on screen/in English, on paper/in their mother tongue, or on screen/in their mother tongue. Afterwards they completed a questionnaire with six open questions from the article. The main outcome measure was sum score on a scale from 0 (no correct answers) to 13 (all questions answered correctly)., Results: We found no difference between readers of paper and screen versions (median (interquartile range) 4 (2-6) vs. 4 (2-5), p = 0.97). Those who read their mother tongue scored significantly higher than those who read English (4 (3-6) vs. 3 (2-4), p = 0.01)., Interpretation: The medium (paper vs. screen) does not influence the ability of general practitioners to retain medical information. Doctors best retain medical information when reading it in their mother tongue.

Desktop-publishing software and hardware has progressed to the point that many widely used word-processing programs are capable of printing high-quality digital images with many shades of gray from black to white. Accordingly, it should be relatively easy to print digital medical images on paper for reports, instructional materials, and in research notes. Components were assembled that were necessary for extracting image data from medical imaging devices and converting the data to a form usable by word-processing software. A system incorporating these components was implemented in a medical setting and has been operating for 18 months. The use of this system by medical staff has been monitored.

Abstract Background There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

In this article we study the particularities of editorial practice in contexts of confinement in Argentina through the systematization and analysis of five publications, already published or in the process of being published, which were formulated within the framework of pedagogical-political practices carried on by the Prisons Extension Program of the Philosophy and Literature Faculty of the University of Buenos Aires. These five cases will be addressed in order to observe what meanings guide the editorial processes through the marks imprinted on them by the specificity of the writing that summons them and the territory to which they belong. Publishing in the context of a pedagogical project developed by the university configures collective territories where writing and publications can display and carry plural voices, which are strengthened in that plurality forged in the heat of individual and collective subjectivation processes made possible by education and writing. Editorial practice is inseparably intertwined with actions aimed at defending rights, narrating lived experiences and building a collective history which are part of the desires and expectations regarding publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumo O presente artigo parte da análise das práticas e representações de publicadores que frequentam as feiras de arte impressa realizadas na cidade de São Paulo nos últimos anos para compreender os vetores sociotécnicos que organizam essas práticas e as materialidades dos objetos editoriais ali publicados e comercializados. Coloca-se, no centro da análise, a relação entre as tecnicidades (o códice, o papel e a impressão) mobilizadas por esses publicadores e certas concepções de passado, presente e futuro inscritas em seus investimentos individuais e coletivos, com destaque para a tensão entre o “retorno ao artesanal” e a pretensão de construir um futuro viável para a publicação. Conclui-se que as novas formas de fetichização do livro impresso estão condicionadas tanto pelas evoluções técnicas proporcionadas pelas tecnologias digitais como pela negação programática do livro convencional, identificado com o mercado editorial mainstream.

Copyright of Sociedade e Estado is the property of Sociedade e Estado 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.)

Having generated data, an important part of the research process is to effectively communicate your findings to the scientific community. Traditional routes for doing this include publishing an abstract, presenting a poster, giving an oral presentation or publishing a peer-reviewed original research paper. Understanding your audience and delivering a clear message are key elements for effective communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review asks what a history of paper and a study of metamedia tell us about the paper v. digital debate reported in the media taking place within the trade book publishing industry just as figures reported in 2016 show that eBook sales are slowing and print is showing a very tiny recovery. Müller’s book shows how paper was the ‘old’ digital, transformative, mythical even, whereas the rise of metamedial literature in Starre’s book reflected a rise in interest in the material aspects of book objects (and control of) by authors as the vanilla incarnation of digital – the eBook – disappointed. As the mixed ecology of print and digital looks set to continue as both books argue, this review asks whether industry concentration and consolidation is becoming the lead story not ever increasing levels of digital activity.White Magic: The Age of Paper*, Lothar Müller, Cambridge: Polity, 2015, ISBN: 978-0-7456-7253-3 Metamedia: American Book Fictions and Literary Print Culture after Digitization, Alexander Starre, Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2015, ISBN: 978-1-60938-359-6 *First published in German in 2012 as Weiße Magie: Die Epoche des Papiers, München, Carl Hanser Verlag

Scholarly research faces threats to its sustainability on multiple domains (access, incentives, reproducibility, inclusivity). We argue that “after-the-fact” research papers do not help and actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. We propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native “as-you-go” alternative. In this design, modules of research outputs are communicated along the way and are directly linked to each other to form a network of outputs that can facilitate research evaluation. This embeds chronology in the design of scholarly communication and facilitates the recognition of more diverse outputs that go beyond the paper (e.g., code, materials). Moreover, using network analysis to investigate the relations between linked outputs could help align evaluation tools with evaluation questions. We illustrate how such a modular “as-you-go” design of scholarly communication could be structured and how network indicators could be computed to assist in the evaluation process, with specific use cases for funders, universities, and individual researchers.

Although an important number of studies support the view of self-control as a limited resource, recent studies pointed out that self-control capacity does not diminish invariably. Success expectancies and willpower beliefs might play an important role in this context. This study tested a mediation model, considering success expectancies in consecutive tasks requiring self-control as a mediator of the relationship between willpower beliefs and performance in these kind of tasks. An experiment involving 163 participants, adolescents, (88 females and 75 males, age range: 14-18 years old) was conducted. Participants were randomized in two experimental groups (manipulated to believe willpower is limited or unlimited) and a control group. Afterwards, participants reported their performance expectancies for two following tasks requiring self-control and solved it (task 1 - stimuli detection; task 2 - vicarious depletion by transposing in a character's struggling with temptation shoes). At the end, they received a menu and ordered the meal, but also estimated the maximum patience until its arrival, as if they were still in the story character's shoes (the dependent variables). Lastly, they completed the Romanian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. The results supported the mediation model but also indicated the possibility that willpower beliefs might affect self-control capacity through other mechanisms. The perception of the energy consumed proved to be particularly influenced by the belief that willpower is limited. The mechanism by which limited and unlimited willpower beliefs influence self-control capacity after consecutive tasks involving self-control needs more investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper compares the characteristics of URLs cited in Indian LIS conference proceedings papers. A total of 15,745 references appended to 1,700 articles published in three Indian LIS conference proceedings published during 2001-2010 were selected. From these references we extracted a total of 5698 URLs and were further classified according to their top level domains, file formats and path depths for further analysis. The results showed that the percentage of articles with at least one URL increased from 39.10% in 2001 to 91.67% in 2010. There was a constant and continuous increase in the number of articles with URLs over the years during 2001-2010. Of the 1,700 articles published in conference proceedings, there were 1,011 (59.47%) articles with URLs. Study also reveals the fact that, of the 5,698 URLs, more than 50% were shared by .org and .com domains which accounted for 1,799 (31.57%) and 1,474 (25.87%) URLs respectively. The highest percentage of cited URLs belonged to HTML (68.50%) followed by .pdf files (8.86%). The path depth levels 0 (no path), 2 and 3 collectively accounted for 67.67% of the extracted URLs. URLs with path depth 1 and 4 put together accounted for 25.31% of all the 5,698 URLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the paper "Variabilità eMutabilità" published by C. Ginni in 1912 that discusses different conclusions leads by the use of different variability indices. It presents various applications related to indices including simple mean deviation, probable deviation, and mean difference.

Abstract: Progress of carbon nanotube (CNT) research and development in terms of published papers and patents is reported. Developments concerning CNT structures, synthesis, and major parameters, in terms of the published documents are surveyed. Publication growth of CNTs and related fields are analyzed for the period of 2000–2010. From the explored search term, “carbon nanotubes”, the total number of papers containing the CNT concept is 52,224, and for patents is 5,746, with a patent/paper ratio of 0.11. For CNT research in the given period, an annual increase of 8.09% for paper and 8.68% for patents are resulted. Published papers for CNT, CVD and CCVD synthesis parameters for the period of 2000–2010 are compared. In other research, publications for CNT laser synthesis, for the period of 2000–2010, are reviewed. Publications for major laser parameters in CNT synthesis for the period of 2000–2010 are described. The role of language of the published references for CNT research for the period of 2000–2010 is also investigated. Published papers/patents in English, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, German, French, Polish, and Spanish languages are compared. As expected, the number of paper/patent publications in English dominates other languages. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses the impact of the Flexner Report as well as three papers published within the issue including one by Goldszmidt et al., one by Neilson et al. and another one by Kulasegaram et al., all of which elaborate on the developmental role of basic science.

Printed texts of the Edo period (1603-1867) were almost exclusively produced by woodblock printing, printed on Japanese paper and bound in side-stitched binding (fukurotoji) with Japanese paper covers. This article examines the physical traits of block-printed books of the Edo period. It looks at the writing systems, book dimensions and cover decoration, along with genres and their association with certain physical characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the journal "The Scandinavian Journal of Economics." In 2003, the four issues of volume 105 of "The Scandinavian Journal of Economics" were published. 25 contributions out of a total 34 contributions were regularly submitted articles, nine were published in special issue, "Population Dynamics and Macroeconomic Performance" and two were presentations of the recipients of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The average publication lag, excluding the papers which appeared in our special issue and the Nobel material, from submission to acceptance of revised versions was 15.7 months, and from receipt of final versions to publication 9.0 months.

The author reflects on writing academic journals. He states that writing and publishing an academic paper is not an easy job. He presents guidelines for authors to create various types of articles for publication which include review articles, and case report articles. He also mentions about organizing original article.