Search

Publishing articles in high-ranked journals brings a higher payoff that designates a greater likelihood of scholastic success of academics and researchers. In the present climate, it provides many opportunities for researchers to be in a "Golden Club" and catch a great deal of offers from Head-hunters, particularly for jobs, research grants, and consultancies, as many people in the research/academic industry still rely on the fact that greater impact is widely apparent in high ranked journals and the journals with high Impact Factor (IF). In universities, many researchers in academic administration positions, who have already progressed with high visibility by publishing research in journals with high IF, always attempt to put into action the same level of requirements and stipulations in publications for tenure decisions of academic and research staff together with rewarding and endowing perks including financial incentives. Assessing junior colleagues purely by exercising the IF score or journal ranks in senior researchers' mind-set has been widely prevalent in academia in the global context. Enforcing rules and regulations for promotion, recruitment, and financial incentives for tenure decisions only for the publications in high profiled journals with top IF is a kind of mania. It, in turn, creates a dismantle discrimination and precede for academic bullying and professional prejudice in universities. Thus, this paper discusses some of the problems with IF and journal ranking mechanisms, which consist of prevailing distortions in the scientific industry by disclosing the failures to predict the definite impact and creation of perverse incentives. It further proposes some points to be taken for reforming/devising an appropriate mechanism targeting the definite impact of essential scientific values of research and researchers that can be readily used for measuring the impact.

Soon after Independence, India Meteorological Department launched a quarterly scientific journal “Indian Journal of Meteorology & Geophysics” in 1950 to provide medium for publication of meteorological and allied research in India. The journal now known as “Mausam” has completed seventy years of its publication in 2019. It is also to be noted that the first paper on Numerical Weather Prediction in India was published in “Mausam” in the year 1958 by Dr. P. K. Das and is now completing 62 years. To encourage best research work a Biennial Mausam Award (prize in form Gold medal or cash) for best research paper published in every two years was started with effect from 1960 initially with name IJMG awards. The Journal also publishes special issues on selected topics of emerging importance and so far 12 issues have been published and the present Diamond Jubilee Volume is the thirteenth in the series. The article traces the journey of the Journal over seventy years (1950-2019) of its publication.

What matters for China’s future growth is not the volume of exports, but whether China will continue to enhance the export competitiveness of high-tech products. Using the export data of 25 countries from 1998 to 2019, this paper measures the export technological sophistication of machinery and transport equipment and constructs an empirical model to study the impact factors of export technological sophistication of machinery and transport equipment in China. The results show that the export technological sophistication is not high, although the export volume of machinery and transportation equipment is large. FDI, human capital, and the previous phase of export technological sophistication have a significant positive effect on the technological sophistication of export; however, the abundant natural resource has a significant negative effect. Finally, some countermeasures and suggestions are put forward based on the empirical results.

The IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (T-ASE) wishes to thank the 1344 reviewers over the past year who have performed an essential role in maintaining the quality of this publication. T-ASE strives for the 90–90 standard, i.e., 90% of articles should be reviewed within 90 days of submission. The review process starts when the Editor-in-Chief assigns the paper to an Editor, who assigns it to an Associate Editor (AE). The AE then obtains confirmation from three to five reviewers, carefully studies the results, and makes a recommendation to the Editor, who then makes a decision that is reported back to the lead author. This review process is very demanding, especially under time constraints. We have summarized the process under “Guidelines for T-ASE Editors and AEs for Handling Papers” on our website. I am pleased to report that submissions have steadily increased (over 1000 in 2020) and our impact factor is now 5.083, a 2.94% increase over the past year. As we strive to increase the quality and impact of the journal, we rely on the hard work of our reviewers and members of the Editorial Board. To those dedicated volunteers, and to anyone who may have been inadvertently omitted from the following list, we extend our sincere appreciation.

BACKGROUND Effective leadership is an integral component for optimal academic performance of surgical units. As one of the leading plastic surgery academic medical centers in China, the authors would like to share their experiences of using the combined parental and shared leadership approach in managing their surgical staff within the department. It has taken into account the essence of Eastern moral philosophies and Western leadership theories. METHODS The authors performed a review of the academic development of their staff and changes in the academic productivity of the department between 1999 and 2018. The difference between the first 10 years (1999 to 2008) and second 10 years (2009 to 2018) was analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the authors' leadership approach. RESULTS There is an increase in the number of Science Citation Index articles published in the past decade with a higher impact factor and more articles published in international journals. The timing to promotion was on average 8.4 years. The average age of promotion to consultants has increased, likely because of a later start in the training. With similar average age, prior education, and gender ratio of surgeons in the unit, the department also received 14 times more in research funding and four times more in national key topic research topic. CONCLUSIONS The effective application of this combined leadership approach has significantly improved the academic productivity and quality of the authors' residents and surgeons and the academic advancement of the unit.

Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods. An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year. Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.

The world of the university has been greatly affected by the leadership and the legacy of the new model of public management associated with the domination of technologies tied to the digitalization of society. The impact on the emancipation of university research in its quest for knowledge, and on the orientation of the public university toward the progress of knowledge and its transmission to students and to society, has challenged its foundations. Spaces of reflection do not officer this model the promise of high performance, nor do “slow science” or perennial great works find their way into the grammar of the public university. The public agencies of externalization of the evaluation of university research have intervened in the quality of scientific production, importing parameters (claves) that confine and reify research activity: indices of quality, such as the so-called “impact factor” as a seal of guarantee, are under the control of private enterprise, which conceives quality in the terms of a “product”, that is, research as just one more commodity on the university market. Through the tautological logic of the realm of numbers, in which the public university and researchers assume a role of customers (clients), the university appears as a “brand” corresponding to the parameters of competitiveness and profitability, with the ultimate objective of attracting investors, raising funds, and attracting students as clients.

This study aims to systematically review the accuracy of the self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COIs) among studies related to the use of dermal substitute products in burn management and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. To do so, a literature search was done to identify studies investigating the use of dermal substitutes in burn management published between 2015 and 2019. Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Declared COIs were then compared with the listed payments. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments totaling more than $100 for each company. A total of 51 studies (322 authors) were included for analysis. Forty studies and 104 authors received at least one payment from the industry. Of these studies, 38 (95%) studies and 91 (88%) authors were found to have a COI discrepancy. From 2015 to 2019, 1391 general payments (totaling $1,696,848) and 108 research payments (totaling $1,849,537) were made by 82 companies. When increasing the threshold on what would be considered an undisclosed payment, the proportion of authors with discrepancies gradually decreased, from 88% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $100 to 27% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $10,000. Author order, journal impact factor, and study type were not significantly associated with increased risk of discrepancy. We found that the majority of studies investigating the use of dermal substitute products for burn management did not accurately declare COI, highlighting the need for a uniform declaration process and greater transparency of industry sponsorship by authors when publishing peer-reviewed burn surgery research papers.

Research equipment is as essential for researchers as transportation is for travelers. Thus, to ascertain the extent to which research equipment affects research performance, this study employed project and performance information to examine the relationships between the qualitative and quantitative performance of papers and patents and the presence and prices of research equipment for research and development (R&D) projects supported by the Korean government from 2011 to 2014 with the Heckman selection model. We discovered that (1) when the equipment was directly constructed using the R&D budgets of the project, it had a positive influence on the performance of both papers and patents. Further, (2) regarding the equipment price, there were negative impacts on papers and patents. At the individual R&D project level, it is necessary to understand the input and output processes to secure project accountability and improvements. We believe this study presents a new perspective on resource allocation of public R&D and promotes an increase in R&D project results using research equipment.

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) has become an important component in the conduction of leading-edge science and innovation. From the different approaches available to measuring IDR, bibliometric indicators have experienced the greatest growth. Despite the frequent use of bibliometric measures of IDR in research and policymaking, their adequacy has not been validated against scientists’ perceptions. Using the case of an IDR-oriented research institute in Japan, this study aims to investigate the differences and similarities between the outcomes of common bibliometric measures of IDR and the scientists’ perceptions of IDR. We used a unique dataset combining bibliometric measures with survey data collected from the scientists’ self-assessment of their research. This study also investigates the factors influencing the outcomes of bibliometrics and scientists' perceptions. Moreover, this study explores how IDR qualitative and quantitative measures differ from those that are more intuitive, such as scientific impact. It was observed that there is no “holy grail” measure for interdisciplinarity when compared with scientific impact, for which the impact factor is considered as a key metric by scientists. While bibliometric measures of interdisciplinarity show mild correlations with scientists' perceptions, they display high discriminatory power. The disagreement between qualitative and quantitative evaluations, as well as the significant field-specific nature of interdisciplinarity, calls for the use of multidimensional assessment approaches for assessing IDR, and the building of a consensus about the meaning and measurement of interdisciplinarity among scientists, respectively. The results of this study provide a series of guidelines for a more effective implementation of interdisciplinarity-oriented R&D policies at different organizational levels.

Journal ratings are a key factor when individuals or institutions assess research and select journals. Despite their significant development in recent years, ratings are still not sufficiently precise or updated enough, depending on the subject and method used. In this paper, we present a new methodology, called paper affiliation index, with which to create subject journal ratings using expert judgment and research impact, both of which are based on secondary, objective measures, thus making it possible to produce lists every year without human manipulation at virtually no cost. We compare the results of our methodology with the selection of top journals by the ShanghaiRanking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects in the Social Sciences, the Excellence in Research for Australia, Australian Business Dean Council, the Academic Journal Guide release by Chartered Association of Business Schools lists, and the Journal Impact Factor calculated by Clarivate Analytics.

Objectives Review abstracts presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Society Meeting (COSM) to determine subsequent publication and identify abstract features predictive of publication in high impact journals. Methods A selection of abstracts accepted in the 2015 COSM scientific programs were retrospectively reviewed. MEDLINE searches via PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to determine publication rates. The Journal of Citation Reports was used to determine impact factors for published abstracts. Binomial regression analyses were used to identify factors related to publication in high impact journals. Results 62.4% of reviewed abstracts (n = 623) were subsequently published, with a mean publication time of 14 ± 12 months. Abstract features predictive of publication were basic science type, other science type, prospective studies, multi‐institutional involvement, and presentation at the American Laryngologic Association and American Otologic Society meetings. Based on Wald score, podium presentation was found to have the biggest effect on publication. Factors positively associated with publication in high impact (impact factor > 2.272) journals were increased author number and sample size. Conclusions Overall publication rate of abstracts selected for presentation at COSM in 2015 was on the higher end of previously reported otolaryngology meetings. Abstracts detailing basic science, other science, prospective and multi‐institutional studies were more likely to lead to future publication. Additionally, increased number of authors and sample size lead to publication in higher impact journals. Level of Evidence N/A.

The article is devoted to the problem of assessing the quality of scientific publications. It is emphasized that the formal ranking of an article is currently determined, as a rule, not so much by the data obtained or formulated concepts, as by the scientometric indicators of the corresponding journals. Approaches to determining the ranking of an article based on the analysis of its citation (impact factor and its analogues) and the number of mentions in social networks (so called altmetrics), as well as the number of downloads of the paper from the publisher’s website are considered. The authors emphasize the significant role of the appearance of author-paid articles in the current change in the situation with scientific publications. It is assumed that the thorough commercialization of the process of publishing their works by scientists has led to a serious deterioration in their scientific component due to the reducing requirements for the format and content of manuscripts sent to the editors of paid journals. The authors express the hope that the “informal” approach to the evaluation of scientific articles, which is based on their content, but not the ratings of the editions that published these works, has not lost its relevance even at the present stage.

OBJECTIVE To assess the prevalence, magnitude, and disclosure status of industry funding in editorial boards of surgery journals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Financial conflicts of interest (COI) can bias research. While authors seeking to publish in peer-reviewed surgery journals are required to provide COI disclosures, editorial board members' COI disclosures are generally not disclosed to readers. METHODS We present a cross-sectional analysis of industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact surgery journals. We reviewed top US-based surgery journals by impact factor to determine the presence of financial COI in members of each journal's editorial board. The prevalence and magnitude of COI was determined using 2018 industry reported payments found in the CMS Open Payments database. Journal websites were also reviewed looking for the presence of editorial board disclosure statements. RESULTS A total of 1,002 names of editorial board members from the top 10 high-impact American surgery journals were identified. Of 688 individual physicians based in the USA, 452 (65.7%) were found to have received industry payments in 2018, totaling $21,916,503 with a median funding amount per physician of $1,253 (IQR $156 - $10,769). Funding levels varied by surgical specialty and journal. Editorial board disclosure information was found in only 3.3% of physicians. CONCLUSIONS Industry funding to editorial board members of high impact surgery journals is prevalent and underreported. Mechanisms of disclosure for COI are needed at the editorial board level to provide readers full transparency. This would acknowledge this COI of editorial board members, and thereby attempt to potentially further reduce the risk of bias in editorial decisions.

To evaluate the quality of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in accordance with the 2016 recommendations by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.A systematic review of all CEAs from September 2017 to September 2019 in the 10 highest impact orthopaedic surgery journals was performed. Quality scoring used the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and the Second Panel checklist. QHES scores ≥80 were considered high quality and50 poor quality. Mann-Whitney U and independent samples Kruskal-Wallis tests compared individual and multiple groups, respectively. Linear regression analysis was performed to correlate QHES score, checklist item fulfillment, and impact factor.The 10 highest impact orthopaedic journals published 6,323 articles with 35 (0.55%) meeting inclusion criteria. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and sports medicine articles comprised 65.7% of included studies. Overall mean QHES score was 89.0 ± 7.6, with 82.8% considered high quality. Mean proportion of Second Panel checklist items fulfilled was 82.1% ± 13.3%, but no studies performed an impact inventory accounting for consequences within and outside the health care sector or discussed ethical implications. Mean QHES score and satisfied checklist items were significantly different by journal (P = .025 and P = .01, respectively). In addition, there was a moderate positive correlation between QHES score and impact factor (r = 0.446, P = .007). TJA CEAs satisfied a higher number of checklist items compared with spine surgery CEAs.Recent orthopaedic CEAs have generally been high quality according to updated Second Panel guidelines but consistently miss checklist items relating to societal impact and ethics. TJA and sports medicine continue to be the most frequently studied orthopaedic subspecialties in health economics, and the breadth of orthopaedic procedures analyzed by CEAs has improved.Level IV, systematic review.

Background In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument. Methods We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants. Results A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported. Conclusions Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.

The impact of COVID‐19 has underlined the need for reliable information to guide clinical practice and policy. This urgency has to be balanced against disruption to journal handling capacity and the continued need to ensure scientific rigour. We examined the reporting quality of highly disseminated COVID‐19 research papers using a bibliometric analysis examining reporting quality and risk of bias (RoB) amongst 250 top scoring Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) COVID‐19 research papers between January and April 2020. Method‐specific RoB tools were used to assess quality. After exclusions, 84 studies from 44 journals were included. Forty‐three (51%) were case series/studies, and only one was an randomized controlled trial. Most authors were from institutions based in China (n = 44, 52%). The median AAS and impact factor was 2015 (interquartile range [IQR] 1,105–4,051.5) and 12.8 (IQR 5–44.2) respectively. Nine studies (11%) utilized a formal reporting framework, 62 (74%) included a funding statement, and 41 (49%) were at high RoB. This review of the most widely disseminated COVID‐19 studies highlights a preponderance of low‐quality case series with few research papers adhering to good standards of reporting. It emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of research and the increasingly vital responsibility that journals have in ensuring high‐quality publications.

Research organizations are becoming more reliant on quantitative approaches to determine how to recruit and promote researchers, allocate funding, and evaluate the impact of prior allocations. Many of these quantitative metrics are based on research publications. Publication metrics are not only important for individual careers, but also affect the progress of science as a whole via their role in the funding award process. Understanding the origin and intended use of popular publication metrics can inform an evaluative strategy that balances the usefulness of publication metrics with the limitations of what they can convey about the productivity and quality of an author, a publication, or a journal. This paper serves as a brief introduction to citation networks like Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Dimensions. It also explains two of the most popular publication metrics: the h‐index and the journal impact factor. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical information on using citation networks to generate publication metrics, and to discuss ideas for contextualizing and juxtaposing metrics, in order to help researchers in translational science and other disciplines document their impact in as favorable a light as may be justified.

The ranking of academic journals and the considerable impact of journal lists have been increasingly criticized, especially in management research. To assess the effectiveness of peer review selection versus bibliometric assessment, a benchmark of the best management and economic journals is performed. Based on multiple indicators, the Financial Times FT50 list is compared to the 100 best ranked journals. The position of the FT journals in our aggregate bibliometric ranking confirms the effectiveness of the peer review of the FT. It also highlights the complementarity of peer review for research assessment with the metrics. The h-index emerges as the best predictor for FT membership, followed by the average citation. The Journal Impact Factor is refuted as a predictor for FT inclusion, while the SJR indicator seems to be more representative only for economics journals. The FT50 confirms the stability of the top-tier journals. It crowns journals’ long-term reputation. The FT50 covers a good balance of subfields and also leaves room for a practitioner journal and openness for innovation. The dichotomy between economics and general management journals remains a concern for rankings and journal lists, as does the size of the selection and the quest for a balanced subdivision between subfields.

An academic surgeon is one who is extensively involved in clinical, academic and research work in surgical specialities. Of late, a fourth demand is being put on him/her, and that of administration, but not much data is available on this. The academic surgeon is expected to identify new opportunities for improving patient care and develop newer modalities of cure while critically evaluating treatment outcome and innovating and improving techniques with time. He/she is constantly doing the balancing act while riding two fast moving comets of surgical knowledge and surgical technology, and as if that was not enough, he/she is also responsible for mentoring the next generation of surgeons and scientists and assists them in their research. By evaluating and changing teaching programmes with time and designing skill labs and digital learning and teaching tools, the academic surgeon has to be a true team leader. His prudence and judgement at the time of crisis can make or break history and do wonders to the team or shatter the team spirit. Building vertical relationships with mentors and mentees and horizontal relationships with peers across other specialities, the academic surgeon is expected to encourage multidisciplinary collaboration to raise the intellectual quotient of the collaborators, and the resultant quality of the research, which is then validated by publications in journals with a high impact factor. An academic surgeon has the unique ability of surrounding himself/herself with a circle of genius!

One of the aspects of post-publication peer review that is difficult for reputable journals or publishers to accept is that it may reveal flaws in their oft-claimed resilient peer review and efficient editorial management. Prospective authors are frequently sold a brand-associated image of a fail-safe process, rigorous editorial handling, and stringent peer review. Yet, in reality, a sector of the published literature that has passed through claimed rigorous screening may still be flawed and contain errors, while some of the peer-reviewed literature is the product of fraud or misconduct. Even top-ranked journals, in terms of journal-based metrics such as the Clarivate Analytics’ journal impact factor, or those that are indexed or hosted on platforms like PubMed, Scopus or Web of Science, have published papers with associated errata or retractions. In such journals, it is possible that erroneous literature has yet to be detected. This paper argues that publishers draw benefit in the form of metrics-based recognition, such as citations to erroneous or retracted papers, or financial reward, either as subscription fees or in the form of article processing charges, neither of which is refunded when a peer-reviewed academic paper is retracted. Knowing that peer review and editorial decisions can be imperfect, publishers have a moral responsibility of toning down claims of the excellence or perfection of peer review when advertising their journals, or they should conduct a full-scale post-publication peer review of their journals’ entire collection to prove it. In turn, academics need to be more proactive in the publishing ecosystem, seeking to correct the literature when errors are found, and not be afraid to call out editors or publishers that defy their claimed academic or ethical excellence.

Background Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review. Objective We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts. Methods We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Results We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from ‘high’ (8%) to ‘critically low’ (76%). The mean ± SD of the “total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items” (range 0–12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (s 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (s 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality (‘critically low’ with s −3.06; 95% CI: −5.30, −0.82; with ‘high’ as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60. Conclusions The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

This study analyses scientific fraud in the European Union by examining retractions due to Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP) where at least one researcher is affiliated to an EU member country. The information on publications retracted due to FFP is based on the records in the Retraction Watch Database up to 31/05/2020 and they are also reviewed in Web of Science. A total of 662 retractions due to FFP were obtained, corresponding to 24.46% of all retractions in the EU. Germany is first in the European ranking for FFP, Holland in the ranking for FF, and Italy in that for Plagiarism. 60.83% of the articles retracted due to FFP are from the Life Science and Biomedicine field. More than 75% of the articles have been published in journals that form part of the JCR and have an impact factor. There is also extensive citation of the retracted documents. Misconduct due to FFP causes a significant loss of resources and reputation, with severe effects for the authors, publishers, and institutions. It is recommended that the EU continue to apply policies and guidelines to harmonise criteria in relation to FFP, as well as to prevent and avoid scientific misconduct.

OBJECTIVE To assess the participation of women in publications of dental journals with a high impact factor. METHODS Articles published in 2016, 2011, and 2006 in 10 dental journals chosen for their highest impact factors in each dental fields were included in this research. Articles-related variables collected included the country of origin of each author, the type of study, and gender of the researchers. Gender was examined through PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, and respective affiliated institutions. Furthermore, a website designed to discover the gender of names was used when the previous alternatives were not conclusive. Forward stepwise Poisson regression models were used for data analysis. RESULTS A total of 3365 studies were included in the first authorship analysis and 3398 in analysis related to last authorship. The prevalence of women as first authors was 37.2% (confidence interval (CI) 95% 34.5-37.5) and as last authors was 22.6% (CI 95% 21.3-23.9). Having a woman as the last author increased the presence of women in the first author position in scientific dental articles by 16% (prevalence ratio = 1.16, CI 95% [1.04-1.29]). The year of publication, journal, and region of the author were associated with an increase in the prevalence of women as last authors. From 2006 to 2016, the prevalence of women as last authors increased by 61%. Despite these trends, women were still underrepresented in science in the evaluated period. CONCLUSIONS There are meaningful gender inequalities in publications of scientific dental papers. Encouraging women to lead research groups can reduce the inequities observed in the present study.

Introduction and hypothesis Variations in outcome measures and reporting of outcomes in trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using synthetic mesh have been evaluated and reported. However, the quality of outcome reporting, methodology of trials and their publication parameters are important considerations in the process of development of Core Outcome Sets. We aimed to evaluate these characteristics in randomized controlled trials on surgery for POP using mesh. Methods Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical treatments using synthetic mesh for POP previously included in a systematic review developing an inventory of reported outcomes and outcome measures. The methodological quality was investigated with the modified Jadad criteria. Outcome reporting quality was evaluated with the MOMENT criteria. Publication parameters included publishing journal, impact factor and year of publication. Results Of the 71 previously reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2017, the mean JADAD score was 3.59 and the mean MOMENT score was 4.63. Quality of outcomes (MOMENT) was related to methodological quality (JADAD) (rho = 0.662; p = 0.000) and to year of publication (rho = 0.262; p = 0.028). Conclusions Methodological quality and outcome reporting quality appear correlated. However, publication characteristics do not have strong associations with the methodological quality of the studies. Evaluation of the quality of outcomes, methodology and publication characteristics are all an indispensable part of a staged process for the development of Core Outcome and Outcome Measure Sets.

Any librarian in this field will need to continue not only filling these roles, but also ensuring that they themselves are part of the conversation as it moves forward and staying up-to-date with developments within this area. The concept of library involvement pertaining to metrics did not originate with altmetrics. Impact Factor was originally created primarily for use by librarians in making collection development and retention decisions. Libraries continue to bear primary responsibility for the acquisition of bibliometrics tools, most notably Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports, and Scopus, as well as the training of people in their use. As a result, librarians are already familiar with providing support for these tools, so it makes sense that librarians have expanded to support the variety of altmetrics sources and tools. Additionally, librarians serve as natural leaders when it comes to altmetrics, not only due to familiarity with resources, but also because of the relationships they maintain with several disparate groups. The article detailed about the various tools, section, evaluation methods in which libraries and librarians are supporting and interacting with altmetrics.

The aim of this study is to explore trends in retracted publications in life sciences and biomedical sciences over axes like time, countries, journals and impact factors, and topics. Nearly seven thousand publications, which comprise the entirety of retractions visible through PubMed as of August 2019, were used. This work involved sophisticated data collection and analysis techniques to use data from PubMed, Wikipedia, and WikiData, and study it with respect to the above mentioned axes. Importantly, I employ state-of-the-art analysis and visualization techniques from natural language processing (NLP) to understand the topics in retracted literature. To highlight a few results, the analyses demonstrate an increasing rate of retraction over time and noticeable differences in the publication quality (as measured by journal impact factor) among top countries. Moreover, while molecular biology and cancer dominate retractions, we also see a number of retractions not related to biology. The methods and results of this study can be applied to continuously understand the nature and evolution of retractions in life sciences, thus contributing to the health of this research ecosystem.

We have completed volume 9 of the Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives â€" JCHIMP. In this perspective piece we discuss the many achievements of our journal, including our impact factor, the diversity of institutions publishing, our editorial board, and the importance of our reviewers.

Medical school and residency programs encourage increased research, and thousands of abstracts are submitted to conferences annually. This study sought to determine the rate of publication of oral presentations from the 2017 Academic Surgical Congress (ASC) and assess factors that influence the likelihood of publication.Abstracts selected for oral, plenary, and QuickShot presentations at the 2017 ASC were evaluated for publication status. Publication status, including date of publication and journal title, the academic rank of first and senior authors, and the type of study were collected. Senior author funding status, as well as source and amount of funding, were cataloged. These variables were noted at 16 mo and then later at 34 mo after the conference.Of the 360 oral and plenary presentations, 41.4% (n = 149) and 70.5% were published at 16 and then 34 mo, respectively. At 16 mo, Basic science, Clinical outcomes, and Education had publication rates of 31.7%, 51.1%, and 57.7%. At 34 mo, they were 76.1%, 69.1%, and 60.06%. QuickShot presentations had a publication rate of 17%, 69%, and 14% for Basic Science, Clinical Outcomes, and Education, respectively. At 16 mo, abstracts with senior authors with an academic rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor had publication rates of 43.3% (22), 49.4% (39), and 41.8% (37), respectively (P = 0.697). At 34 mo, publication rates for senior authors was 21.8% (53), 32.9% (80), and 45.2% (110) for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, respectively (P= 0.01). Quick shot presentations had publication rates of 14%, 26%, and 49% for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, respectively. 191 (53.2%) senior authors had funding, of which 125 (66.8%) were from the National Institute of Health. 61% of abstracts with a funded senior author went on to be published, whereas 38.9% of abstracts with an unfunded senior author were published. The presence of funding continued to have a positive association with publication (P 0.01 versus P 0.01) at 16 and 34 mo postconference. In QuickShot presentations, 88% of abstracts with a funded senior author went on to be published. Of Quick shot presentations without funding, 100% were published.There was an increase in publication rate from 16 to 34 mo after the 2017 ASC conference for oral presentations. At longer follow-up, the academic rank of the senior author and the funded abstracts were associated with abstracts achieving publication, whereas the academic rank of the first author, presentation type, and funding source was not. Funding was significantly associated with the Presentation Type at the conference and the Journal Impact Factor of the manuscript, whereas abstract type was not. QuickShot presentations did not fare as well regarding publication status; at approximately 3 y, the publication rate was 43%.

To encourage research transparency and replication, more and more journals have been requiring authors to share original datasets and analytic procedures supporting their publications. Does open data boost journal impact? In this article, we report one of the first empirical studies to assess the effects of open data on journal impact. China Industrial Economics (CIE) mandated authors to open their research data in the end of 2016, which is the first to embrace open data among Chinese journals and provides a natural experiment for policy evaluation. We use the data of 37 Chinese economics journals from 2001 to 2019 and apply synthetic control method to causally estimate the effects of open data, and our results show that open data has significantly increased the citations of journal articles. On average, the current- and second-year citations of articles published with CIE have increased by 1 ~ 4 times, and articles published before the open data policy also benefited from the spillover effect. Our findings suggest that journals can leverage compulsory open data to develop reputation and amplify academic impacts.

AIM Use of systematic reviews (SRs) as first-level evidence for guideline recommendations hinges on review quality. In particular, US guidelines for adherence-related recommendations in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are not based on available SRs of adherence-outcome relationships; it is unclear why. No published studies report on the quality of SRs on HIV adherence and outcomes, which may be driving the lack of use. We describe the quality of this body of literature. METHODS Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, ScIELO Citation Index, and Ovid Emcare. Screening and quality assessments were performed in duplicate using AMSTAR 2. Funding sources and impact factors of publishing journals were also extracted, and correlations between quality rankings and numbers of critical weaknesses versus impact factors were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS Nine SRs of 1141 records met eligibility criteria. Overall confidence in the results was critically low for most (78%) SRs. Underperformance was found across all AMSTAR 2 domains. Impact factor (a surrogate or journal reputation) did not correlate with quality. CONCLUSIONS SRs do not necessarily comprise top-level evidence despite the availability of quality appraisal tools and reporting guidance, which could explain the lack of SR evidence in US HIV medication adherence-related guideline recommendations. All parties to evidence synthesis publication should require quality assessment of studies.

Editorial board members (EBMs) of academic journals have been frequently studied for better understanding the principles of their functioning, impact on editorial policy, publication ethics, and entire scientific progress. One of the promising trends is to quantitatively evaluate the contribution of EBMs to the scholarly output of parent journals. This paper represents the results of the study on publication activity of editorial board members of the Russian Library and Information Science journals. To detect a share of papers by EBMs in the journal’s scholarly output, we studied a share of EBMs papers in parent journals and other sources. Generally, we detected the active participation of EBMs in increasing scholarly output of parent journals. We also studied the publication activity of foreign members of EBMs in Russian journals that turned out to bedramatically low. Formal involvement of foreign researchers to enhance the level of journal’s internationalization may explain this situation. It is shown, that the fact of publication fails to significantly impact on journal’s ranking positions. The scientific quality of EBMs papers has proved to be of higher value: in case of high quality of EBMs papers, the number of readers and citations start to increase. On the other hand, uncited papers by EBMs have the lowest or even negative effect on the journal’s rank. The findings can be of interest to editors-in-chief and founders of academic journals.

Most researchers establish research directions in their study of new fields by providing expert advice or publishing expert papers. The existing academic search services display papers by field but do not provide experts by field. Therefore, researchers are left to judge experts in each field by analyzing the papers for themselves. In this paper, we design and implement an expert search system based on papers that have been published in the academic societies. The academic expert search system is based on a big data processing system to handle a large amount of data in academic fields. It calculates an expert score using quality and influence factors. The quality factor is calculated based on the citations, impact factor, and recentness of a paper. The influence factor is measured by the sparsity of a field and the degree of contributiveness of an author. The proposed system provides various services such as expert searches, keyword searches, the hot topics, expert relationships, and academic society statistics. By finding experts in a specific field, our system can support researchers’ research activities.

BackgroundPopulation health (PH) research capacity and performance are essential pillars of evidence-based practice to help address health inequalities. Best evidence is provided by systematic reviews (SRs). None of the published bibliometric analysis specifically assess the production of SRs on PH in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The aim of our study is to investigate publication patterns and time trends of SRs reporting PH in the MENA region to evaluate the state of PH research performance in the region.MethodThe study protocol was developed a priori (protocol registration number: CRD42017076736). PubMed was searched. Two independent reviewers screened 5747 identified articles. We investigated author affiliation and collaboration, yearly citations of the SRs and journal information. Joinpoint regression was used to explore these characteristics overtime.ResultsOur meta-research included 387 SRs published between 2008 and 2016 which reported data on PH in 20 MENA countries. Publication of SRs increased over time in journals with impact factor pvalues ≤ 0.0024). Authors belonging to the region published increasingly (pvalue = 0.0001) over time. Thirty percent of the SRs were from authors solely from the region, while an additional 30% were from the region collaborating with Western country authors. Of these collaborative reviews, 79% were led by authors from the region. However, collaboration in the region (with the exclusion of collaboration with Western country authors) was rare (0.8%). These authors from the region published more in open-access journals while authors from Western countries collaborating or not with authors from the region published more in hybrid or non-open-access journals (pvalue pvalue ConclusionThe incremental trend of PH SR publications on MENA likely reflects the ongoing improvement in research performance in the region. Authors from the region appear to be taking a lead role in conducting and disseminating MENA PH research. Open-access journals are a major contributor in facilitating MENA research dissemination.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42017076736

Background Although Altmetric has been widely used by researchers to monitor the audience of their articles, there are no studies that have analysed factors associated with Altmetric score for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Objectives 1) To analyse factors that could be associated with Altmetric scores for low back pain systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. 2) To describe the characteristics of these articles and their Altmetric scores. Methods We searched for all low back pain systematic reviews and guidelines indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database published between 2015 and 2017. We extracted data related to the published paper, the publishing journal, and Altmetric scores. Results A total of 66 systematic reviews and 5 guidelines were included. The variable impact factor (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric mentioned score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 15.4 (95% CI: 0.97, 29.7) ajusted to all remaining variables. The variable number of citations normalized by year of publication (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric reader score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 6.4 (95% CI: 4.03, 8.72) ajusted to all remaining variables. We also found that the majority of the systematic reviews and guidelines were published in English, had a descriptive title, were published as open access, included multicenter studies, and had media release generated by the publishing journal. Conclusion Metrics related to the number of citations, such as the impact factor are associated with Altmetric scores.

The globalization of medical research and global health's increasing popularity worldwide have resulted in greater geographic, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of studies published in the scientific literature. Yet the geographic distribution, authorship representation, and subject trends among Low-/Low-Middle-Income Country (LIC/LMIC)-based scientific publications remain largely unknown. This analysis assesses these gaps in knowledge. We performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all scientific articles published between January 2014 and June 2016 in the four most prominent general medicine and five most prominent general global health journals based on impact factor. The African region, containing 24% of the global LIC/LMIC population, accounted for 49.9% of all publications. Corresponding authors with either exclusive or joint appointment to a LIC/LMIC institution were present in 26.2% of all included articles. Over one-quarter (28.8%) of all publications did not list a local author. Nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of articles published in global health journals and roughly half (52.4%) in general medicine journals involved infectious diseases. Non-HIV infectious disease studies were by far the most frequent subject areas across all journals. The trends identified in this study may help to inform the evolution and prioritization of future research efforts, thereby allowing global health to remain truly global.

There were 79 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2019, including 65 original research papers, 2 reviews, 8 technical notes, 1 Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonacne (SCMR) guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2018 (n = 89) with a corresponding 5.5% increase in manuscript submissions from 345 to 366. This led to a slight decrease in the acceptance rate from 25 to 22%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2019 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2020) increased from 5.07 to 5.36. The 2020 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2017 and 2018 was cited 5.36 times in 2019. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.2. We are now finishing the 13th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC. As outlined in this report, the Open-Access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications. I hope that our authors will continue to send their very best, high quality manuscripts for JCMR consideration and that our readers will continue to look to JCMR for the very best/state-of-the-art publications in our field. It takes a village to run a journal. JCMR is blessed to have very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and Reviewers. I thank each of them for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. My role, and the entire process would not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers (who will leaving the journal in the coming months) and our assistant managing editor, Jennifer Rodriguez, who has agreed to increase her reponsibilities. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR. As I begin my 5th year as your editor-in-chief, please know that I fully recognize we are not perfect in our review process. We try our best to objectively assess every submission in a timely manner, but sometimes don't get it “right.” The editorial process is a tremendously fulfilling experience for me. The opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and a highlight of my week!

Objective The aim of this study was to gather the opinion of medical practitioners in India regarding the modifications in the recently released MCI (Medical Council of India) circular for faculty promotion criteria across medical colleges in the country and their suggestions for further changes. Materials and Methods An 11-set validated online questionnaire was circulated among medical practitioners across various medical colleges in the country, open for a period of 8 days between 5 to 12 June, 2020. The participants in this online survey were asked to rank the order of authors and types of manuscripts on a scale of 0 to 1 with increments of 0.1 and were also asked for an opinion regarding indexing, inclusion of impact factor of the journal, and citation indices. Results There were 182 respondents included in the survey, belonging to 12 different states. Majority of the doctors participating in the survey were professors (37.3%, 68/182). About 81.3% (148/182) doctors were aware of the latest MCI guidelines. Opinion for adding citations to the promotion criteria was expressed by 59.3% (108/182). There was a general suggestion to include number of citations, and Google Scholar as citation service. A scoring table was proposed based on the responses, to rank various publications. Conclusion As per the survey, more than 80% of the medical practitioners were aware of the recent update by MCI for faculty promotion. The participants expressed that the exiting guidelines may be further modified by the inclusion of all authors and all types of manuscripts into the criteria, based on a graded score system.

Since the megajournal concept was established as a model of a sustainable scientific open access only journal, the scientific public has been polarized. On the one hand, these journals are seen as the future of academic publishing, enabling faster availability of research results, and thus easier communication between researchers, while on the other hand, for a number of authors, this new and non-traditional way of publishing scientific achievements is debatable. In addition to obvious criticism and public controversy, megajournals have been described as a dumping ground for works of untested quality, with good earnings for their publishers, which automatically characterizes them as predatory. Besides the basic characteristics, the paper gives an overview of five influential megajournals, including their bibliometric indicators. The increase in the number of published papers and impact factors in the initial years of publication, indicates that megajournals have been recognized and accepted as a business model. In the last few years, during the analysis of various metrics of published megajournals, a certain stagnation has been noticed, which indicates the hyperproduction of new works in an increasing number of titles.

Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

Skewed citation distribution is a major limitation of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) representing an outlier-sensitive mean citation value per journal The present study focuses primarily on this phenomenon in the medical literature by investigating a total of n = 982 journals from two medical categories of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). In addition, the three highest-ranking journals from each JCR category were included in order to extend the analyses to non-medical journals. For the journals in these cohorts, the citation data (2018) of articles published in 2016 and 2017 classified as citable items (CI) were analysed using various descriptive approaches including e.g. the skewness, the Gini coefficient, and, the percentage of CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations. All of these measures clearly indicated an unequal, skewed distribution with highly-cited articles as outliers. The %CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations was in agreement with previously published studies with median values of 13–18% CI or 44–60% CI generating 50 or 90% of the journal’s citations, respectively. Replacing the mean citation values (corresponding to the JIF) with the median to represent the central tendency of the citation distributions resulted in markedly lower numerical values ranging from − 30 to − 50%. Up to 39% of journals showed a median citation number of zero in one medical journal category. For the two medical cohorts, median-based journal ranking was similar to mean-based ranking although the number of possible rank positions was reduced to 13. Correlation of mean citations with the measures of citation inequality indicated that the unequal distribution of citations per journal is more prominent and, thus, relevant for journals with lower citation rates. By using various indicators in parallel and the hitherto probably largest journal sample, the present study provides comprehensive up-to-date results on the prevalence, extent and consequences of citation inequality across medical and all-category journals listed in the JCR.

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the male infertility topic. The main selection criteria were considered the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 works published in the third quarter (July - September) of 2020 was formed. The review included articles on the following issues: redox balance in the male reproductive system, advanced paternal age, the effect of a new nasal form of testosterone on fertility, the correlation of PSA levels with infertility, as well as new data on the effect of COVID-19 on male fertility.

The Elsevier (Scopus) CiteScore is an increasingly popular journal-based metric (JBM) that is rapidly gaining popularity over its once decades-dominant JBM, Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Impact Factor (JIF). CiteScore, which is currently assigned to over 41,000 Scopus-indexed journals or other sources, faces a risk that does not seem to have yet been discussed, namely its “hijacking” to create a copy-cat or misleading metric. The JIF is already famously suffering this phenomenon in “predatory” open access publishing, but predators in the realm of academic publishing are constantly seeking ways to expand their “prey” base, i.e., authors. The use of fake metrics, or copy-cat metrics, that give the impression of a famed JBM or other metric, like the JIF or CiteScore, are created in an attempt to lure unsuspecting academics—who might erroneously associate a metric as a “quality” parameter—to their journals. It would not be surprising to see the emergence of copy-cat CiteScore-like metrics emerging. Academics, editors and publishers need to be vigilant.

Funding is vital for the survival of science and thereby development and sovereignty of a country and should look to the quality of the product. This paper looks at funding citations in Incites® database by Brazilian authors. Almost 70% of the documents in this study were funded by one of 10 Brazilian agencies, mainly Capes, CNPq and FAPESP. Although federal agencies (Capes and Cnpq) are important nationwide, the funding agency from Sao Paulo state (FAPESP) was seen to have national impact, probably due to collaboration of researchers from other states with universities in Sao Paulo. The impact of these agencies was lower than when science was funded by foreign sources, which were mainly North American and European. Eighty companies (primarily manufacturing and pharmaceutical) were also seen to fund research in Brazil, none being national. Clusters were formed of co-funding foreign agencies using quality indicators. Cluster separation depended mainly on journal impact factor, open/closed access and % documents in Q1 journals. Using Capes data, citation rates are also low, which may account for 30% of papers nationwide without funding information.

This article reports on a study in which journal publication performance of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (AL/TESOL) academics in the Group of Eight (Go8) Australian universities was examined for each academic rank (Lecturer to Professor) and across apparent genders (females and males). Journal publication performance was defined in terms of productivity (number of articles), academic impact (number of citations to those articles), and quality (journal impact factor and quartile rankings). To this end, journal publications of 65 Go8 AL/TESOL academics were identified over 19 years (2000–2018 inclusive). Normative research profiles are provided for each academic level and across two genders and are discussed in light of the literature. Where appropriate, a critical view has also developed concerning issues such as “publish or perish” and “gender gap” in academic publication. Results and discussion of results can contribute to a better understanding of AL/TESOL journal article production in Go8 universities as a reference group.

The IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (T-ASE) wishes to thank the 1110 reviewers over the past year who have performed an essential role in maintaining the quality of this publication. T-ASE strives for the 90-90 standard, i.e., 90% of articles should be reviewed within 90 days of submission. The review process starts when the Editor-in-Chief assigns the paper to an Editor, who assigns it to an Associate Editor (AE). The AE then obtains confirmation from three to five reviewers, carefully studies the results, and makes a recommendation to the Editor, who then makes a decision that is reported back to the lead author. This review process is very demanding, especially under time constraints. We have summarized the process under “Guidelines for T-ASE Editors and AEs for Handling Papers” on our website. I am pleased to report that submissions have steadily increased (over 1000 in 2019) and our impact factor is now 5.224, a 42.5% increase over the past year. As we strive to increase the quality and impact of the journal, we rely on the hard work of our reviewers and members of the Editorial Board. To those dedicated volunteers, and to anyone who may have been inadvertently omitted from the following list, we extend our sincere appreciation.

Establishing impact of a research paper is essential for academia, industry and research community alike. The attempts made in this direction are hitherto limited to some objective metrics, largely based on the citation count. The number of citations has always been used as a measure for ascertaining quality and popularity of research papers. Though, citations play an essential role in academic research, sometimes researchers may cite a paper to just point out its weaknesses and infirmities. A subjective look into the sentiments behind citations of a research paper aids in understanding the opinion of the peer research community for a paper. Objective measures such as citing author’s impact factor and the publication’s impact factor, may help to quantify the weightage of citations themselves and should also be included in the assessment of impact of a research paper. In this paper, we formulate a model that combines both the objective and subjective metrics and forms basis for an index to objectively convey the impact of a research paper.

Many conservation scientists are based in higher education institutions, but increasingly academia does not value factors important to conservation work when considering the promotion and tenure of its faculty. There is pressure in academia to publish in academic journals (especially high impact factor journals; conservation journals typically have an impact factor of

Elsevier’s (Scopus) CiteScore, a journal-based metric (JBM), has been assigned to more journals than Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Impact Factor (JIF), including journals indexed by Scopus that do not carry a JIF. Unlike JIFs, CiteScore values are openly accessible. The advertisement of CiteScore, like other metrics, by journals or publishers may be in violation of DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment) principles. While use of the CiteScore can provide interesting information about how a journal is being cited, the use of this JBM as a “quality” metric is cautioned.