BMC Medicine editorial board members on open access publishing.
ABSTRACT: In recognition of Open Access week (21st-27th October 2013), we asked some BMC Medicine Editorial Board Members to share their views and experiences on open access publishing. In this short video, they highlight the benefits of visibility and dissemination of their research, and discuss the future directions for this model of publishing.
Project description:This editorial accompanies the launch of BMC Rheumatology, a new open access, peer-reviewed journal within the BMC Series portfolio, which considers studies on all aspects of rheumatological diseases. The Journal will also place a special emphasis on manuscripts reporting systemic and inflammatory conditions and connective tissue diseases, along with related comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, malignancy and infection. Through the publication of a variety of article types, including Research articles, Case reports, Study protocols and Debates, BMC Rheumatology will provide the rheumatology community with an open access avenue to disseminate research into rheumatological diseases, with the ultimate aim of improving patient care.
Project description:The seventh BMC Ecology competition attracted entries from talented ecologists from around the world. Together, they showcase the beauty and diversity of life on our planet as well as providing an insight into the biological interactions found in nature. This editorial celebrates the winning images as selected by the Editor of BMC Ecology and senior members of the journal's editorial board. Enjoy!
Project description:BMC Ecology announces the winning entries in its inaugural Ecology Image Competition, open to anyone affiliated with a research institute. The competition, which received more than 200 entries from international researchers at all career levels and a wide variety of scientific disciplines, was looking for striking visual interpretations of ecological processes. In this Editorial, our academic Section Editors and guest judge Dr Yan Wong explain what they found most appealing about their chosen winning entries, and highlight a few of the outstanding images that didn't quite make it to the top prize.
Project description:The sixth BMC Ecology Image Competition received more than 145 photographs from talented ecologists around the world, showcasing the amazing biodiversity, natural beauty and biological interactions found in nature. In this editorial, we showcase the winning images, as selected by our guest judge, Professor Zhigang Jiang from the Institute of Zoology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, with help from the journal's editorial board. Enjoy!
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Design</h4>Semistructured interviews.<h4>Setting</h4>10 UK biomedical research funders.<h4>Participants</h4>12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are committed to open access publishing and are pleased with recent developments which have stimulated growth in this area. Smaller charitable funders are supportive of the aims of open access, but are concerned about the practical implications for their budgets and their funded researchers. Across the board, biomedical research funders are turning their attention to other priorities for sharing research outputs, including data, protocols and negative results. Further work is required to understand how smaller funders, including charitable funders, can support open access.
Project description:Introduction:Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access. Methods:This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing. Results:The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy. Conclusions:While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
Project description:For the fifth year, BMC Ecology is proud to present the winning images from our annual image competition. The 2017 edition received entries by talented shutterbug-ecologists from across the world, showcasing research that is increasing our understanding of ecosystems worldwide and the beauty and diversity of life on our planet. In this editorial we showcase the winning images, as chosen by our Editorial Board and guest judge Chris Darimont, as well as our selection of highly commended images. Enjoy!
Project description:Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.
Project description:Background Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise. Objectives To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications. Materials and methods A cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05. Results 80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05). Conclusions We found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process. Highlights • Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors of some surgical journals are significantly more likely to publish in their own affiliated journals.• To minimize potential conflicts of interest, journals should commit to double-blinded evaluations of prospective manuscripts and disclose any associated conflicts of interest to avoid bias and maxmize the quality of the peer review process.• Manuscript evaluations should be based solely on academic merit and impact.
Project description:Tics are repeated, usually suppressible movements or vocalizations. They are the defining features of tic disorders including Tourette syndrome, but many people have them for shorter durations at some point in childhood. This editorial marks the beginning of the F1000RESEARCH: Tics specialty section, an effort to provide a single portal to modern research on tics and tic disorders. Publications in F1000RESEARCH: Tics benefit from F1000RESEARCH's novel approach to publishing, in which articles can be published within days of submission. Peer review happens after publication and is fully open. When the submitted article or a revision is approved, it is promptly submitted to repositories including NIH's PubMed Central. In addition to research articles and reviews, F1000RESEARCH: Tics will publish study protocols, clinical practice articles, case reports, and data notes. The home page will also provide links to expert recommendations of articles that have appeared elsewhere, and to relevant posters from scientific meetings (http://f1000.com/posters/). F1000RESEARCH's approach is enabled by the capabilities of internet publication, including space to publish the full results of a study rather than just a few graphs selected from the data. Publishing methodologically sound studies without requiring subjective editorial judgments of novelty or broad appeal brings numerous advantages, including minimizing publication bias and shining the light of openness on peer review. To celebrate the launch of the Tics section, F1000RESEARCH is offering discounted article processing charges for manuscripts submitted by March 1st 2015. I have had good experiences publishing in F1000RESEARCH, and look forward to seeing a wide range of tic-related manuscripts submitted.