scholarly journals The impact of the COVID pandemic on prematurity rates: Conflicting results, publication ethics and academic frustration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gorm Greisen ◽  
Lina Chalak ◽  
Mathias Lühr Hansen ◽  
Marie Isabel Rasmussen
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam Jessica Curno

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to lay out some of the more complex issues arising in the area of publication ethics. The impact of electronic publishing and electronic information is a main focus of the paper. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws in particular upon the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics including illustrative cases discussed at the forum, guidelines and discussion documents. Findings – Three areas are highlighted to stimulate discussion around challenges of publication ethics in the digital era. These are the role of the internet in facilitating misconduct, the issue of confidentiality in publishing and how incentives in research assessments drive author behavior. Originality/value – The paper brings together a variety of issues discussed under the broader umbrella of electronic information and new technologies in publishing.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-81
Author(s):  
Lenche Danevska ◽  
Mirko Spiroski ◽  
Doncho Donev ◽  
Nada Pop-Jordanova ◽  
Momir Polenakovic

Abstract Introduction. The Internet has enabled an easy method to search through the vast majority of publications and has improved the impact of scholarly journals. However, it can also pose threats to the quality of published articles. New publishers and journals have emerged so-called open-access potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and journals, and so-called hijacked journals. It was our aim to increase awareness and warn scholars, especially young researchers, how to recognize these journals and how to avoid submission of their papers to these journals. Methods. Review and critical analysis of the relevant published literature, Internet sources and personal experience, thoughts, and observations of the authors. Results. The web blog of Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado, was greatly consulted. Jeffrey Beall is a Denver academic librarian who regularly maintains two lists: the first one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and the second one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory standalone journals. Aspects related to this topic presented by other authors have been discussed as well. Conclusion. Academics should bear in mind how to differentiate between trustworthy and reliable journals and predatory ones, considering: publication ethics, peer-review process, international academic standards, indexing and abstracting, preservation in digital repositories, metrics, sustainability, etc.


Author(s):  
Khanh Hoang

After careful consideration consistent with COPE guidelines, the editorial staff has concluded that there is no case of plagiarism associated with this article. (10th August, 2016)The editors have received allegations that the paper references arguments and evidence without attribution to pre-existing literature, and that it exhibits stylistic similarities to other sources on the same topic. The editors are currently conducting an investigation under the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to confirm or refute the allegations. (29th June, 2016)This article considers the impact of migration laws on immigrant women in rural, regional and remote communities (RRR communities) who are victims of family violence. The Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’) includes a ‘family violence exception’ that allows for the grant of permanent residency to women who hold a temporary partner visa in circumstances where the relationship with the Australian sponsor has broken down due to family violence. However, the Regulations impose strict procedural and evidentiary requirements for making a family violence claim. These laws disproportionately impact those in RRR communities by failing to account for their isolation, lack of access to services and particular vulnerabilities. As a result, immigrant women in RRR communities are restricted in their ability to access the family violence exception.This article calls for reform of the Regulations to address the locational disadvantages faced by immigrant women in RRR communities. Building on the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission, it argues for the repeal of the provisions governing evidentiary requirements for ‘non-judicially determined’ claims of family violence. In its place, it is suggested that there should be no restrictions on the types of evidence that can be provided. In addition, all non-judicially determined family violence claims would be referred to an ‘independent expert panel’ for assessment. The independent expert panel should include, at a minimum, a number of community legal centres (CLCs) and family violence centres (FVCs) around Australia. CLCs and FVCs are leveraging technology — such as Skype and teleconferencing — and integrated service responses to provide access to justice to those in RRR communities.


2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (04) ◽  
pp. 241-243
Author(s):  
V Barbour ◽  
B Astaneh ◽  
M Irfan

‘Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers.’ TS Eliot (1888–1965) Have you ever wondered what medical journal editors do? Most editors in the medical field are unpaid and the work is part of the wider culture of service provided by so many in the medical profession. Together with the editorial board and the publisher, an editor will decide the direction of the journal. For instance, decisions are made about what sort of material should be published. One of the most common tasks, however, is the daily screening of manuscripts submitted for publication, many of which are rejected without peer review owing to poor quality, redundant material or the subject of the article being beyond the scope of the journal. After deciding which peer reviewers to send an article to, the editor must make a final decision on a manuscript, which may not necessarily concur with the advice given by the reviewers. With this comes a huge amount of personal responsibility and one to the organisation the editor represents. Take the example of George Lundberg, the editor of JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, who was fired from his position after 17 years with the alleged faux pas of rushing to publish an article to coincide with the Clinton impeachment hearings ‘to extract political leverage.’ Lundberg published research showing that 60% of college students surveyed in 1991 did not think that engaging in oral sex was classed as actually ‘having sex.’ 1 While neither the methods used in the survey nor the results were disputed, the timing of the publication at an awkward political juncture was. Extrapolating this, editors are therefore not just responsible for the content of what is published but also the impact of publications in the wider arena. Editors must also handle a great deal of correspondence, including author queries and complaints, and respond to them in a timely manner. Communication with the team, the publisher, authors and readers is a vital skill. Finally, the editor needs to deal with the journal’s ethical policy when examples of plagiarism, author disputes or other forms of misconduct are evident. Breaches of publication ethics are forms of scientific misconduct that can undermine science and challenge editors, many of whom have little formal training in this field. In this respect, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), founded in 1997 as a voluntary body, has become a central player. COPE provides a discussion forum and advice as well as guidelines for scientific editors with the aim of finding practical ways to deal with forms of misconduct. The Annals is a member of COPE and follows its code of conduct for journal editors. 2 It is a privilege that the current chair of COPE, Dr Barbour, and her colleagues have written this final article in the medical publishing series about challenges in publication ethics. I hope you have found this series useful and enjoyed reading the range of articles we have published from many experts in their fields. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Sanders SA , Reinisch JM . Would you say you ‘had sex’ if…? JAMA 1999 ; 281 : 275 – 277 . 2. Committee on Publication Ethics . Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors . Harleston, UK : COPE ; 2011 .


PRILOZI ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenche Danevska ◽  
Mirko Spiroski ◽  
Doncho Donev ◽  
Nada Pop-Jordanova ◽  
Momir Polenakovic

Abstract Introduction and aim: The Internet has enabled an easy method to search through the vast majority of publications and has improved the impact of scholarly journals. However, it can also pose threats to the quality of published articles. New publishers and journals have emerged so-called open-access potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and journals, and so-called hijacked journals. It was our aim to increase the awareness and warn scholars, especially young researchers, how to recognize these journals and how to avoid submission of their papers to these journals. Methods: Review and critical analysis of the relevant published literature, Internet sources and personal experience, thoughts, and observations of the authors. Results: The web blog of Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado, was greatly consulted. Jeffrey Beall is a Denver academic librarian who regularly maintains two lists: the first one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and the second one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory standalone journals. Aspects related to this topic presented by other authors have been discussed as well. Conclusion: Academics should bear in mind how to differentiate between trustworthy and reliable journals and predatory ones, considering: publication ethics, peer-review process, international academic standards, indexing and abstracting, preservation in digital repositories, metrics, sustainability, etc.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Zouina Sarfraz ◽  
Azza Sarfraz ◽  
Ammar Anwer ◽  
Zainab Nadeem ◽  
Shehar Bano ◽  
...  

Background: Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model. Most predatory journals do not follow policies that are set forth by organizations including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and a librarian at Auraria Library, coined the term ‘predatory journals’ to describe pseudo-journals. Our literature review has highlighted that predatory journal authorship is not limited to early-career researchers only. Majority of authors are unfamiliar with practices in pseudo journals despite publishing manuscripts. Methodology: For the purpose of this review, a systematic literature search was carried in October 2019 of the following databases: (1) Web of Science (all databases), (2) ERIC, and (3) LISTA. All stages of the review process included access to the search results and full articles for review and consequent analysis. Articles were added after screening fulltext articles by meeting the inclusion criteria and meeting none of the exclusion criteria. As there were a high number of articles reporting findings on predatory journals, they were further screened re-evaluating them for any deviations from the theme of this study. Relevant material published within the last five years was used. Results: After a thorough review, 63,133 were located using the Boolean logic. After reviewing 63 abstracts and titles for relevance, 9 articles were included in the literature review. Four themes are concerned with the results of the synthesis that demarcate legitimate and predatory publications. They include factors: (1) Related to the journal, (2) Academic and professional, (3) Dissemination, and (4) Personal. Conclusion: Our literature review found that there is a lack of one single definition for predatory journals. We believe that it is essential for potential authors and young researchers to have clear guidelines and make demarcations of potential journals that seem dubious. Moreover, the authors’ selection of publishers should be modified to control the risks of tainting ‘open-access’ publishing with fraudulent journals. The academic and research community ought to revise their criteria and recognize high quality and author journals as opposed to ‘predatory’ journals. Research mentorship, realigning research incentives, and education is vital to decrease the impact of predatory publishing in the near future.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lígia Gabrielle dos Santos ◽  
Ana Carolina da Costa e Fonseca ◽  
Claudia Giuliano Bica

Objective To analyze ethical standards considered by health-related scientific journals, and to prepare the Ethics Requirement Score, a bibliometric index to be applied to scientific healthcare journals in order to evaluate criteria for ethics in scientific publication.Methods Journals related to healthcare selected by the Journal of Citation Reports™ 2010 database were considered as experimental units. Parameters related to publication ethics were analyzed for each journal. These parameters were acquired by analyzing the author’s guidelines or instructions in each journal website. The parameters considered were approval by an Internal Review Board, Declaration of Helsinki or Resolution 196/96, recommendations on plagiarism, need for application of Informed Consent Forms with the volunteers, declaration of confidentiality of patients, record in the database for clinical trials (if applicable), conflict of interest disclosure, and funding sources statement. Each item was analyzed considering their presence or absence.Result The foreign journals had a significantly higher Impact Factor than the Brazilian journals, however, no significant results were observed in relation to the Ethics Requirement Score. There was no correlation between the Ethics Requirement Score and the Impact Factor.Conclusion Although the Impact Factor of foreigner journals was considerably higher than that of the Brazilian publications, the results showed that the Impact Factor has no correlation with the proposed score. This allows us to state that the ethical requirements for publication in biomedical journals are not related to the comprehensiveness or scope of the journal.


1962 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 415-418
Author(s):  
K. P. Stanyukovich ◽  
V. A. Bronshten

The phenomena accompanying the impact of large meteorites on the surface of the Moon or of the Earth can be examined on the basis of the theory of explosive phenomena if we assume that, instead of an exploding meteorite moving inside the rock, we have an explosive charge (equivalent in energy), situated at a certain distance under the surface.


1962 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 169-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Green

The term geo-sciences has been used here to include the disciplines geology, geophysics and geochemistry. However, in order to apply geophysics and geochemistry effectively one must begin with a geological model. Therefore, the science of geology should be used as the basis for lunar exploration. From an astronomical point of view, a lunar terrain heavily impacted with meteors appears the more reasonable; although from a geological standpoint, volcanism seems the more probable mechanism. A surface liberally marked with volcanic features has been advocated by such geologists as Bülow, Dana, Suess, von Wolff, Shaler, Spurr, and Kuno. In this paper, both the impact and volcanic hypotheses are considered in the application of the geo-sciences to manned lunar exploration. However, more emphasis is placed on the volcanic, or more correctly the defluidization, hypothesis to account for lunar surface features.


1997 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 197-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Steel

AbstractWhilst lithopanspermia depends upon massive impacts occurring at a speed above some limit, the intact delivery of organic chemicals or other volatiles to a planet requires the impact speed to be below some other limit such that a significant fraction of that material escapes destruction. Thus the two opposite ends of the impact speed distributions are the regions of interest in the bioastronomical context, whereas much modelling work on impacts delivers, or makes use of, only the mean speed. Here the probability distributions of impact speeds upon Mars are calculated for (i) the orbital distribution of known asteroids; and (ii) the expected distribution of near-parabolic cometary orbits. It is found that cometary impacts are far more likely to eject rocks from Mars (over 99 percent of the cometary impacts are at speeds above 20 km/sec, but at most 5 percent of the asteroidal impacts); paradoxically, the objects impacting at speeds low enough to make organic/volatile survival possible (the asteroids) are those which are depleted in such species.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document