March highlights from the world of scientific publishing
4th Apr 2014
An update on what I learnt from Twitter last month: dodgy citation metrics, mislabelled papers and journals and more.
A wonderful Perspective piece appeared in the open access journal mBio entitled Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania. Here, Arturo Casadevall (Editor in Chief of the journal) and Ferric C. Fang treat the misuse of the journal impact factor as if it were a disease and suggest possible causes and treatments. They diagnose the main problem as: “Publication in prestigious journals has a disproportionately high payoff that translates into a greater likelihood of academic success” and that these disproportionate rewards “create compelling incentives for investigators to have their work published in such journals. ” Their solutions are not new but worth reading. (via @PeppeGanga)
A less useful post was a widely shared news feature in the Pacific Standard: Killing Pigs and Weed Maps: The Mostly Unread World of Academic Papers. This gave an interesting look at citation analysis, but it started with a rather dodgy statistic:
A study at Indiana University found that “as many as 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, referees and journal editors.” That same study concluded that “some 90% of papers that have been published in academic journals are never cited.”
This ‘study’ turns out to be a feature in Physics World from 2007 by Indiana University Librarian Lokman I Meho, in which these numbers are simply asserted, with no citation and no data to back them up. Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) pointed out a paper by Vincent Larivière and Yves Gingras on arXiv that effectively debunks these numbers. I also found a paper from 2008 whose Discussion section cites various studies on the proportion of uncited papers – which ranges from 15% to 26% for scientific and mathematical research papers, but was much higher in the social sciences (48% uncited) and humanities (93% uncited). So the situation isn’t as bad as the Pacific Standard made out, unless you are in the humanities.
The Wellcome Trust, the UK’s largest provider of non-governmental funding for scientific research, released a dataset on Figshare of the fees paid in the 2012-13 financial year for open access publication (APCs). @ernestopriego posted an initial analysis, @CameronNeylon posted a tidied up version of the dataset and @petermurrayrust and Michelle Brook (@MLBrook) initiated a crowdsourced attempt to check whether all the articles paid for were actually made open access by their publishers. The resulting spreadsheet will continue to be used for checking whether any paid open access papers are being wrongly marked as copyright of the publisher, or being put behind a paywall, or being given a link to payment for a licence to reproduce or reuse (anyone can help with this if they wish). Peter Murray-Rust has identified some examples where these errors have been made, which seem to be mostly from Elsevier, and this prompted Elsevier to post an explanation of why this is taking so long to fix (they were alerted the problem two years ago, as Mike Taylor has explained).
Richard Poynder (@RickyPo) pointed me to a post on Google+ by David Roberts about changes in the APCs of Elsevier maths journals. Some have been pegged to small annual increases, others have gone up 6-8%, while one has had its APC reduced by 30%. The latter just happens to be the journal for which the editorial board threatened to quit in protest at Elsevier’s continuing lack of sufficient support for open access. The APCs are generally between US$500 and US$5000. In response to this, Ross Mounce (@rmounce) pointed out that Ubiquity Press (@ubiquitypress), whose APCs are US$390, have given a full breakdown of what the APC pays for. @HansZauner asked why all publishers can’t do the same, but this seems unlikely to happen.
It was also Richard Poynder who tweeted a very useful guide to choosing an open access journal, produced by Ryerson University Library & Archives in Canada. This gives a series of tests to see whether a journal is likely to be reputable rather than a ‘predatory’ journal, including membership of OASPA, journal metrics, peer review procedure and editorial board membership. @BMJ_Open pointed out that the page implied that double blind peer review was the most widely accepted standard. The page has now been changed, perhaps in response to this comment, to say “Take into consideration that blind peer review and open peer review are both considered a credible standard for scientific publishing.”
Other open access and open data news:
- @WoWter posted an analysis of how much it would cost the Netherlands to convert completely to gold open access.
- The Directory of Open Access Journals (@DOAJplus) published a new application form that all journals must fill in to apply to be in the database. This includes a ‘DOAJ Seal’ that indicates the openness, indexability and discoverability of the journal. (via @MikeTaylor).
- PLOS published an update and clarification of their open data policy, following the debates that I covered last month.
- David Crotty wrote a good summary of the debate about PLOS’s open data policy for the @ScholarlyKitchn.
- A new service called JournalClick was announced, which gives recommendations for open access papers to read based on what you have read (via @RickyPo).
- A German court has ruled that the Creative Commons non-commercial (CC:NC) clause means that the material is only for personal use, so even state-owned radio stations with no advertisements, for examples, are not permitted to use CC:NC material without permission (via @petermurrayrust).
- Duke University
Scholarly Communications Officer, Kevin Smith
Scholarly Communications Officer Kevin Smith (@klsmith4906) posted about two problems with Nature Publishing Group licencing: they have recently started to require Duke authors to request a formal waiver of their faculty open access policy, and their licence to publish requires the author to waive or agree not to assert their moral rights. @grace_baynes of Nature responded in a comment.
- @damianpattinson of PLOS posted a report of an interesting talk entitled ‘The future is open: opportunities for publishers and institutions’ that he and his colleague Catriona MacCallum (@catmacOA) gave at the UKSG conference ‘Open Access Realities’ in London in November 2013.
The IEEE launched its new journal, IEEE Access, which claims to be an open access megajournal and was listed as one that was ‘coming soon’ in Pete Binfield (@p_binfield)’s December 2013 post on megajournals. However, the FAQ makes clear that in fact the authors are required to sign over copyright to the publisher, and reuse is not allowed, although the papers are free to read online. A discussion with @MattJHodgkinson and @BenMudrak clarified the situation for me. Matt pointed out that the Budapest Open Access Initiative FAQ says “Open access journals will either let authors retain copyright or ask authors to transfer copyright to the publisher”. So copyright transfer is allowed within open access, but restricting all reuse means that this journal should not be called an open access journal. IEEE Access also doesn’t conform to the standard definition of a megajournal, as the FAQ states “IEEE Access will publish articles that are of high interest to readers, original, technically correct, and clearly presented.” Megajournals do not select on the basis of perceived ‘interest’, so this is not a megajournal.
- I haven’t kept up fully with the controversy surrounding the publication of a new method (called STAP) to produce stem cells that was published in Nature in January. Paul Knoepfler’s stem cell blog (and @pknoepfler) is the place to go for full updates, but I was concerned to read that Nature has declined to publish a ‘Brief Communication Arising’ reporting that the method does not work. It seems important to me that such follow-ups should be published in the same journal as the original paper.
- Jocelyn Sze (@jocelynesze) pointed me to a series of 2012 articles in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience on visions for the future of scientific publishing. This editorial by Nikolaus Kriegeskorte introduces the series.