Search

Background and Aims: Highly cited papers (HCPs) can influence both research and clinical practice. They help to identify core literature and important advances in a field. This study aimed to assess the current status and prospects of South Asia COVID-19 research from the HCPs using bibliometric indicators. Methodology: COVID-19 literature from South Asia published between December 2019 and 29 November 2023 in the Scopus database was analysed. The top HCPs, having more than 200 citations, were evaluated. Information about citation counts, authors and organisations and their affiliations, year of publication, source journal, geographical origin, subject, article type, funding details, etc. were retrieved and analysed. Data and visualisation analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and other bibliometric software. Results: The 298 South Asia HCPs were published from 2020 to 2023 and were cited 200–3,596 times, with a mean average of 413.9 citations per paper (CPP). Around 24.5% and 51.3% of HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaboration, respectively. The most productive organisations were the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, while the most impactful organisations were Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, Mumbai. The most productive journals were Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. Conclusions: This study has identified core and significant authors, organisations, journals, subject fields and significant keywords, collaborators and funding agencies involved in South Asia's COVID-19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In previous decades, large-scale research has been carried out on bacterial meningitis. In every field, citation analysis is the most significant contribution. The study's objective was to identify and analyze the 100 articles on bacterial meningitis that received the most citations between 2000 and 2023, highlighting the most significant developments in the field. Objective: The objective of this study was to find out what makes a highly influential article by identifying and analyzing the characteristics of the 100 articles in the field of bacterial meningitis that receive the most citations. The goal of this study was to find and examine the 100 articles on bacterial meningitis that received the most citations. Methodology: We identified the top 100 most-cited papers in the field of bacterial meningitis from 55 journals using the Dimensions AI database. The results of each author's analysis of 100 articles were then compared. We gathered fundamental data such as the journal's title, country of publication, and study type. Descriptive counts or percentages were used to compare the various categories. Results: Between the year 2000 and the year 2023, articles were published. The total number of citations ranged from 115 to 1176, with 42 papers receiving more than 200 citations. In 2008, 14 articles were published, followed by 10 in 2000 and 2007. One thousand one hundred and seventy-six times were given to the most-cited paper, whereas 115 times were given to the least-cited article. "Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors in Adults with Bacterial Meningitis," by Diederik van de Beek, et al. (2004) was the article that received the most citations. 1176 people have cited this article. van de Beek Diederik of the Academic Medical Center in The Netherlands is the author who has written the most articles, was mentioned in 14 of the top 100 articles. Papers were primarily published in Pediatrics (n = 9) publication with 1861 citations. The Netherlands came in second with 18 publications, followed by the United States (n = 46). Conclusion: Our study uses bibliometrics and visualization analysis of the most important articles in this field to show the current state of research in the area of bacterial meningitis, provide a history of research trends, and offer a perspective for future bacterial predicts the growth of meningitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column will help the voice teacher better understand and evaluate voice research publications. Three main topics are discussed: 1) the basic structure of a scientific paper, 2) a method for quickly reading and understanding scientific papers, and 3) a method for evaluating voice science publications. A fictious ChatGPT-generated study is critiqued with the authors' method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publishing scientific articles is an expedition of tenacious efforts with patience and conscientious decision-making; however, even with such careful consideration, researchers may overlook the dubious activities of clandestine organizations or remain oblivious to the unethical aspects of publishing. Paper mills are the latest impediment to academic publishing's integrity. The increasing number of paper mill publications damages the credibility of genuine journals and jeopardizes academic integrity, adding to the vulnerability of research. This paper deals with the tactics, activity, detection, impact, and solving the menace of such fraudulent practices. This paper is a summary of existing literature and analysis that aims to increase awareness of fraudulent practices like paper mills among researchers and academicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the tasks required of most statistics researchers and academic faculty is to publish their innovative ideas in the peer‐reviewed literature. In this paper, we provide guidance about the different stages of the process as experienced authors and offer advice from those who hold the decision about the success or failure of these papers, namely the editors of applied statistics journals. The paper is organized into four sections focusing on the different stages of publishing: (1) Planning what to write about, where to submit and how to organize the paper; (2) The process of writing the paper; (3) Interpreting and responding to peer‐reviews from the journal editors and referees to prepare for resubmission; and (4) General comments about the publication process, including collaboration and mentoring. Each section starts with fundamentals provided by the moderators (C.A.C. and L.L.) on key aspects to consider on each topic and then is followed with discussion from some current and past editors of impactful journals in the field of applied statistics. Our hope is that this collection of insights may help accelerate learning about the process for young researchers and help all researchers to understand some of the important often‐unspoken aspects of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In research, outcomes are often categorized as primary and secondary. The primary outcome is the most important one; it determines whether the study is considered 'successful' or not. Secondary outcomes are chosen because they provide supporting evidence for the results of the primary outcome or additional information about the subject being studied. For reasons that are explained in this paper, secondary outcomes should be cautiously interpreted. There are varying practices regarding publishing secondary outcomes. Some authors publish these separately, while others include them in the main publication. In some contexts, the former can lead to concerns about the quality and relevance of the data being published. In this article, we discuss primary and secondary outcomes, the importance and interpretation of secondary outcomes, and considerations for publishing multiple outcomes in separate papers. We also discuss the special case of secondary analyses and post hoc analyses and provide guidance on good publishing practices. Throughout the article, we use relevant examples to make these concepts easier to understand. While the article is primarily aimed at early career researchers, it offers insights that may be helpful to researchers, reviewers, and editors across all levels of expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The outbreak of COVID-19 has produced an unprecedented number of trials and articles.

This article analyses Italian illustrated editions of Little Women published between 1908 and 1945. After an overview of the publishing history of the novel in Italy, the paper will examine Italian illustrations as hermeneutic tools in order to examine their ideological function in the representation of gender. The belated reception of Alcott’s novel in Italy, caused by its representation of a nonconformist educational model for girls, is mirrored in the tension between the nationalistic drive and the influence of foreign models that can be pinpointed in the illustrated editions. By analyzing adaptations of American illustrations, original Italian creations, and omissions of iconic illustrations, this paper will unveil how much the visual element is embedded in the Italian historical and cultural context, as the choice (or omission) of particular images impacted the interpretation of the book. By examining the Italian editions of Little Women published in this time frame, we will also be able to retrace the links with the American illustrated history of the book and bear testimony to the powerful impact of the 1934 film version on printed editions.

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to an article in Pulse International, many faculty members in medical universities and colleges in Pakistan have been promoted by publishing papers in substandard medical journals over the past four years. This has created a dilemma for junior faculty members and postgraduates who are not receiving proper guidance or assistance from their seniors. The article highlights the prevalence of unethical publication practices and gift authorship in Pakistan. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMandDC) has identified these substandard journals and is now working to evaluate and improve their standards, including organizing training courses for editors and staff members. The PMandDC is committed to upholding peer review, publication ethics, and authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. [Extracted from the article]

A scientist reviewing a study spotted figures that looked identical to his own, leading to a frustrating campaign to prevent its publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to enquire about the English foreign language (EFL) doctoral students' perspective, especially in the non-English department, concerning the Indonesian government policy, which obliges an article published in a reputable international journal as a requirement to receive a doctoral degree. Their challenges in publishing their papers in Scopus or Web of Science (WOS)-indexed journals and their resolutions were also analyzed. A mixed-methods technique was used to obtain quantitative and qualitative information. The study consisted of 57 respondents, comprising 25 males and 32 females, who were EFL doctoral students of education departments from five universities. The purposive sampling method with several criteria was used to determine the study participants. Data were then collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Subsequently, the findings showed that the policy of publishing a paper in Scopus or WOS-indexed journals to obtain an EFL doctoral degree was burdensome to the majority of the students. Other findings showed that the students faced several challenges in publishing their papers in these journals, including language problems, cost of publication, journal selection, lack of experience, duration to publish, writing difficulties, revising, and stress. The actions to resolve these challenges were also provided in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This paper investigates retracted articles indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) Brazil, using bibliometric techniques to identify the characteristics of these retractions and relevant citation trends. All records of retracted articles from the first record in October 2004 to April 2022 were included. Sixty-seven retractions and 870 citations pre- and post-retraction were analyzed. Results indicate a change of scenario that began in 2015, with recurrences of retracted articles allegedly produced by paper mills. The prevalence of retractions derived from professional misconduct in health research and the frequency of post-retraction citations in health sciences raise concerns in the chain of stakeholders, public health, and scientific development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The outbreak of COVID-19 has produced an unprecedented number of trials and articles. Objective To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS) journal processing times. Methods Original papers search of published in selected ORL-HNS journals in terms of times from submission-to-acceptance (S-A), acceptance-to-first online publication (A-P), and submission-to-online publication (S-P). Papers were divided into those published in the pre-COVID-19 era and those during the COVID-19 era. The latter were further divided into unrelated to COVID-19 and related to COVID-19. Results A total of 487 articles from 5 selected ORL-HNS journals were included, of which 236 (48.5%) were published during the pre-COVID-19 era and 251 (51.5%) were published during the COVID-19 era. Among them, 180 (37%) papers were not related to COVID-19, and 71 (14.5%) were related to COVID-19. The S-A duration of COVID-19-related articles was significantly shorter compared with that of papers submitted in the pre-COVID-19 era and to papers submitted in the COVID-19 era but unrelated to COVID-19 (median 6 to 34 days compared to 65 to 125 and 46 to 127, respectively) in all 5 journals. The most prominent reductions in S-A and S-P times were documented in the laryngology and otology/neurotology disciplines, respectively. Conclusions Processing times of the included papers were significantly shorter in most of the selected ORL-HNS journals during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. COVID-19-related papers were processed more rapidly than non-COVID-19-related papers. These findings testify to the possibility of markedly expediting S-P times and hopefully set a precedent for postpandemic publishing schedules. Level Of Evidence: 5 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Research theses can have a significant impact on the development of applied sciences, especially when their results are published. Objective This study aims to determine publication rate of papers extracted from the medical residency and master’s degree theses of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (GUMS) during 2008-2018. Methods This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were collected from the medical residency and master’s degree theses of GUMS from 2008 to 2018. Then, they were searched in international and national databases according to the title, keywords, and names of supervisors, advisors, and students. Results Of 774 theses, 449 (58 %) papers had been extracted and published in journals indexed by ISI/ PubMed (41.2%), Scopus (11.8%), BIOSIS, Chemical Abstract, and Embase (0.44%) and others (46.56%). Most of them (98.66%) were original research. Moreover, in 383(85.3%) of the theses, there was no statistician or data advisor. The median time from defending theses to the publication of a paper from them was two years. Conclusion The publication of papers extracted from the theses of GUMS has increased, and more than 50% of them have been published in journals indexed by ISI, PubMed, and Scopus. However, the factors associated with the publication of papers need to be surveyed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a guide on writing original research papers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to international guidelines and journal-specific instructions for successful publication. It also discusses the preparation of research papers from early study phases, the use of guidelines such as CONSORT and STROBE for different research types, and the need for clear, concise scientific language.

The field of economics is undergoing a paradigm shift, marked by what has become known as the "credibility revolution." This shift has impacted what economists write about, how they organize and structure their papers, and where they chose to publish their findings. This paper traces publishing trends from the 100 most cited papers in the decades from 1970 to 2019 (500 papers in total). Data suggest that the field has become more empirical and that the structure of papers is more standardized, often following a format that is closer to that of scientific papers. Increases in the percentage of women first‐listed authors and the gender ratio are noted and found to be correlated with emerging fields. Most interestingly, a decreasing number of highly cited papers are from what are generally considered the "Top 5" journals in economics, suggesting increasing importance of articles published outside of the Top 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To examine the errata and retractions in total published output of Hungarian research and academia relative to that in 34 other European countries.Objective: To analyse the number of errata and retractions related to papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations compared to those by authors with affiliations in the 34 other countries.Methods: Errata and retractions retrieved from three databases, namely Retraction Watch, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus, were counted and sorted by country.Results: Scopus featured 7 retractions linked to Hungarian affiliations and WoS featured 10. Retraction Watch featured 26 such retractions, placing Hungary in 23rd position among the 35 countries arranged in descending order of the number of retractions. Of the 26 retractions from Hungary, 5 were in Elsevier journals and another 5 in Springer Nature; also, 8 of the 26 were associated with the University of Debrecen. When ranked for the number of errata notices for every 1000 published papers, Hungary was ranked 29th in WoS (2.54 notices per 1000 papers) and 26th in Scopus (2.3 notices per 1000 papers).Conclusions: The low numbers of Hungarian affiliations suggest that either research ethics are more stringently observed in Hungary or that publications from Hungarian research institutes, including papers in Hungarian – many Hungarian journals are indexed neither in WoS nor in Scopus – have not been scrutinized adequately through post-publication peer review.

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. 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]

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As any field evolves, so do journals' expectations from authors. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage in Health Professions Education (HPE) has evolved, Medical Teacher's expectations have changed, and previously-accepted paper types are now routinely rejected. This commentary gives some guidance for authors currently submitting AI in HPE papers to Medical Teacher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journal processing times before publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS). Online search of original papers published in selected ORL-HNS journals in terms of times from submission to acceptance (S-A), acceptance to first online publication (A-P), and submission to online publication (S-P). Papers were divided into those published in the pre-COVID-19 era and those during the COVID-19 era. The latter were further divided into unrelated to COVID-19 and related to COVID-19. A total of 487 articles from 5 selected ORL-HNS journals were included, of which 236 (48.5%) were published during the pre-COVID-19 era and 251 (51.5%) were published during the COVID-19 era. Among them, 180 (37%) papers were not related to COVID-19, and 71 (14.5%) were related to COVID-19. The S-A duration of COVID-19-related articles was significantly shorter compared to papers submitted in the pre-COVID-19 era and to papers submitted in the COVID-19 era but unrelated to COVID-19 (median 6–34 days compared to 65–125 and 46–127, respectively) in all 5 journals. The most prominent reductions in S-A and S-P times were documented in the laryngology and otology/neurotology disciplines, respectively. Processing times of the included papers were significantly shorter in most of the selected ORL-HNS journals during the COVID-19 era compared to the pre-COVID-19 era. COVID-19-related papers were processed more rapidly than non-COVID-19-related papers. These findings testify to the possibility of markedly expediting S-P times and hopefully set a precedent for post-pandemic publishing schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Word templates exist for select journals, and their primary objective is to facilitate submissions to those journals, thereby optimizing editors' and publishers' time and resources by ensuring that the desired style (e.g., of sections, references, etc.) is followed. However, if multiple unrelated authors use the exact same template, a risk exists that some text might be erroneously cloned if template-based papers are not carefully screened by authors, journal editors or proof copyeditors. Elsevier Procedia® was used as an example. Select cloned text, presumably derived from MS Word templates used for submissions to Elsevier Procedia® journals, was assessed using Science Direct. Typically, in academic publishing, identical text is screened using text similarity software during the submission process, and if detected, may be flagged as plagiarism. After searching for "heading should be left justified, bold, with the first letter capitalized", 44 Elsevier Procedia® papers were found to be positive for vestigial template text. The integrity of the information in these papers has been compromised, so these errors should be corrected with an erratum, or in the case of extensive errors and vast tracts (e.g., pages long) of template text, papers should be retracted and republished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem — and how editors are trying to cope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Browser plug-in alerts users when studies — or their references — have been posted on a site known for raising integrity concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although philosophy cites less than most other academic subjects, many scholars still take a lack of reference to and engagement with the relevant literature as a reason to reject a paper in philosophy. Here I argue against that idea. Literature requests should only in rare circumstances be an absolute requirement, and a lack of (engagement with) references is not a good reason to reject a paper. Lastly, I briefly discuss whether an author has reasons to provide references, and I argue that although there are special circumstances in which we ought to avoid referencing papers, there are strong reasons in favor of engaging with the literature. Hence there is an asymmetry between what the author has a reason to do in writing a paper and how reviewers and editors ought to evaluate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal (FCSRJ) is a multidisciplinary journal that includes Professional Issues as one of eight topic areas. This paper examined 28 professional issue papers published in FCSRJ between 2009 and 2022. The following eight categories emerged: Early Leaders in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS); Understanding FCS; Accreditation and Standards; Collaboration, Funding, and Leadership; Current Leaders; Mentoring Students; Mastering the Art of Publishing; and Approaches to Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Overall, this study highlights the potential for diverse voices and formats to enrich the discourse surrounding professional issues. [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

This article examines the joint makulatura campaign of 1974–91 by the Soviet Supply Committee (Gossnab) and the State Committee for Publishing (Goskomizdat), a campaign in which readers could exchange collected wastepaper for vouchers to obtain the popular and otherwise unavailable titles of the makulatura book series. Through analysis of the debate in Literaturnaia gazeta on the perceived waste and shortage of printing paper, the official campaign instructions, and the changing "editorial" paratexts of the makulatura books, the article sheds light on the public negotiations about the campaign and the value and reuse value of paper and reading matter in late Soviet society. By materializing the abstract relation between paper and books, the makulatura experiment turned both paper scrap and books into collection items and readers into paper suppliers. This materialization gave both readers and writers a marked awareness of paper as a raw material and a medium of cultural production. However, the shift of readers from the receiver to the producer side of the textual communication circuit also implied a collision of logics from the different perspectives of authors, collectors, publishers, and supply agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta‐research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID‐19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]