profile

Journalology

Journalology #26: Rewarding editors

Published about 2 years ago • 12 min read

​

​

​

Hello fellow journalologists,

A recurring theme in this newsletter is the tension that has emerged recently between editorial and commercial teams due to gold open access business models. As a recap, the three tensions that I regularly refer to are:

  • quantity vs quality
  • speed vs accuracy
  • authors vs readers

An underlying cause of the tension between quantity and quality is that many journals have significantly reduced their article volumes over the past decade. Editors wanted to create selective journals with good impact factors, and one way to do that was to lower the acceptance rate. Publishing fewer papers was unlikely to affect institutional sales, especially if the impact factor increased, so the commercial impact was low. Indeed, the revenue per article (a key metric for publishers) increased over time.

However, this created a significant problem for journals that now want to flip to a fully Gold OA business model. If a journal generates $8k per article under a subscription model (not unusual for good society journals) — but would only be able to charge $4k for an APC (open access article processing charge) — then the journal needs to publish twice as many papers to generate the same revenues. Even journals with good margins would need to increase their output considerably just to break even. This is not about commercial greed. Rather, it’s about financial survival at a time of intense competition. As I demonstrated last week, authors are increasingly choosing to submit to fully OA journals that have a lighter form of peer review and that publish quickly.

The tension between quality and quantity is manifesting itself across many journals. This week a news story broke about a journal whose editor had been fired because he refused to publish more papers in the journal.

One fellow academic created a statement of non-cooperation, which included the following text:

Wiley’s explanation is all the more dubious insofar as they have pressured journal editors to massively increase the number of papers they accept for publication. This pressure threatens to undermine the integrity of the peer-reviewed journal system and turn excellent venues for quality research into nothing more than crumbling paper mills.

According to a news story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the “massive increase” that the petition refers to was to raise the journal’s output from 24 articles in 2022 to 30 articles in 2024, 32 in 2025, and 34 in 2026, “a more than 40-percent increase from its current level of production over a three-year span” according to Christian Barry, one of the co-editors.

The petition continues:

To be sure, there is an interesting question whether the top journals in political philosophy (and other areas) should accept more articles. Perhaps their current acceptance rates are overly restrictive. But this is an academic question that can only be answered by academic philosophers on academic grounds. It cannot be answered by publishing houses looking to maximise the profits they can extract from the labour we freely provide. Editorial independence over our journals is essential—without that independence, a journal publication will mean precious little.

The concept of editorial independence is core to journal publishing, but it’s often misinterpreted. The World Association of Medical Editors defines it as follows:

Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial content of the journal, generally referred to as “editorial independence.” Editorial content includes original research, opinion articles and news reports, both in print or electronic format, and how and when information is published. Owners should not interfere in the evaluation, selection or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are strongly influenced.

In other words, editors should be able to select which articles to publish without interference from the publisher. However, that doesn’t mean that they have free rein to publish however many articles they want. Publishing articles incurs costs and directly or indirectly generates revenues; therefore publishers, who are responsible for the financial performance of the journal, need to have a say in article output.

Ideally, editors and publishers should have an ongoing dialogue about the size of the journal, but, ultimately, it’s the publisher who gets to decide what the annual budget (pages, articles, editorial stipends etc.) should be. Editor contracts should make it clear how many articles a journal needs to publish; editors get to select the content not define the volumes of content. If they don't agree with the direction the publisher is taking the journal then they can resign, but in the vast majority of cases it should be possible to create article budgets that everyone can work towards.

I spent last week in Toronto at the Council of Science Editors meeting and I had the pleasure of moderating a session on this topic. I was joined on stage by four panellists: David Moher (Ottawa Health Research Institute), Melissa Patterson (AIP Publishing), Stephane LaRochelle (Nature Communications), and Ginny Herbert (Frontiers). We had a conversation for 45 minutes, which covered two questions:

  • How should editorial performance be monitored?
  • How should editors be incentivised and rewarded?

I proposed this session to CSE because I’m concerned that OA business models will encourage some publishers to create inappropriate incentives for editors to increase published output, simply to drive revenues.

At the end of the session I suggested that organisations like CSE, WAME, EASE, and COPE might want to write guidelines on how to appropriately reward editors for their (considerable) efforts. Publishing papers quickly and at scale is the key to commercial success on OA journals. There’s a risk that bad actors will try to encourage editors to increase publication volumes inappropriately or to cut corners in order to improve turnaround times. Indeed, some editors may try to negotiate compensation based on the the new business that they bring in.

Ensuring that editorial teams are appropriately monitored and rewarded can be challenging. As part of my consultancy work I have been advising publishers how to monitor editorial workloads and how to reward editors appropriately. Please contact me to discuss whether I could help your organisation navigate this important topic.

Briefly quoted

​Writing a massively multi‐authored paper: Overcoming barriers to meaningful authorship for all​

The perception that co-authors on large authorship publications have not meaningfully contributed underlies widespread institutional bias against multi-authored papers, disincentivizing large collaborations despite their widely recognized value for advancing knowledge. Our approach identifies and overcomes key barriers to meaningful contributions, protecting the value of authorship even on massively multi-authored publications.

Methods in Ecology & Evolution (Elizabeth T. Borer et al)

​Evolving our portfolio in response to integrity challenges​

As we continue to mitigate against systematic manipulation of the publishing process, Hindawi has today closed four journals, which have been heavily compromised by paper mills. The four journals are Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, and Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. Furthermore, we commit to continuing our work to retract compromised content from these journals despite their closure.

Hindawi (press release)

Related: Hindawi shuttering four journals overrun by paper mills (Retraction Watch)

​Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training​

In our current system, many scientists gain experience with peer review by “learning on the job” when invited to review by an editor or as apprentices contributing to reviews accepted by mentors. The lack of formal training may underlie the expectation gap between what biomedical editors report wanting to see in peer reviews and what referees deliver. Editors – often leading scientists in the field – identify core problems with submitted peer reviews, including unacceptable text or tone, requests for additional experiments outside the scope or peer review guidelines of the journal, and misuse of the confidential notes to editors.

mBio (Diana M. Proctor et al)

​Closing the gender gap in authorship​

Overall, we found that 41% of all authors of commissioned content in Nature Aging in 2021 were women. Our analysis also showed that women made up 39% of corresponding authors and 42% of contributing authors. Looking at gender representation across different formats, we found a better representation of women authors in our shorter articles (47%) than the longer formats, which were more skewed toward men (33% women). Similarly, across all but one of our formats (News & Views), women were less well represented as corresponding authors than as co-authors.

Nature Aging (editorial)

​Proposal for a distributed, community-driven academic publishing system​

We propose an academic publishing system where research papers are stored in a network of data centres owned by university libraries and research institutions, and are interfaced with the academic community through a website. In our system, the editor is replaced by an initial adjusted community-wide evaluation, the standard peer-review is accompanied by a post-publication open-ended and community-wide review process, aiming at a more objective and longer-term evaluation, the publishing costs are reduced to the running costs of the servers, and access is fully open.

arXiv (Matteo Barbone et al)

​A Lesson from Tucker Carlson​

Without affinity with a powerful brand, most content — and the authors of it — will fail to make a dent in the collective consciousness of their community, or rise to a level of recognition that might improve their prospects. This is a main reason why so many proposed distributed solutions can never work — there is no central brand unifying, signaling, and elevating the content on a consistent basis. Serious solution proposals need to address the power of brands and the platforms they provide. Ignoring brand power means losing out in the media space.

The Geyser (paywall; Kent Anderson)

​UK universities agree open access publishing deal with Springer Nature​

Results of the consultation on the latest proposal from Springer Nature were conclusive, with all 110 respondents voting to accept the offer, although a large number did so ‘with significant reservations’. There were concerns around the high cost of publishing OA outside the agreement and the limited transparency, particularly with how Springer Nature’s article processing charges (APCs) are calculated. Comments were also raised around Springer Nature’s approach to author rights retention, given the publisher’s commitment to gold OA, which some respondents felt created barriers to equitable OA publishing worldwide.

JISC (press release)

​Antonia Seymour on why publishers matter​

There is plenty of data that shows that the final published version – known as the version of record – achieved via gold open access – is more discoverable, readable, citable, connected and credible than an accepted manuscript in a repository (so called Green open access). How we make research openly available and how it is communicated is critical to its impact on science and society. Research dissemination being a planned process that academic publishers do really well. Publishers pour time and money into developing new ways for students, researchers, librarians and the general reader to find and use content.

Publishers Association (transcription on Antonia Seymour inaugural speech as president of the Publishers Association)

​How academic podcasting can change academia and its relationship with society: A conversation and guide​

In this paper we explore the potential of academic podcasting to effect positive change within academia and between academia and society. Building on the concept of “epistemic living spaces,” we consider how podcasting can change how we evaluate what is legitimate knowledge and methods for knowledge production, who has access to what privileges and power, the nature of our connections within academia and with other partners, and how we experience the constraints and opportunities of space and time. We conclude by offering a guide for others who are looking to develop their own academic podcasting projects and discuss the potential for podcasting to be formalized as a mainstream academic output.

Frontiers in Communication (Michael Cox et al)

​2023 OA Week Theme Announcement: Community over Commercialization​

When commercial interests are prioritized over those of the communities that research seeks to serve, many concerning issues arise. Open Access Week provides an opportunity for individuals to discuss questions that are most relevant in their local context. These might include: What is lost when a shrinking number of corporations control knowledge production rather than researchers themselves? What is the cost of business models that entrench extreme levels of profit? When does the collection and use of personal data begin to undermine academic freedom? Can commercialization ever work in support of the public interest? What options for using community-controlled infrastructure already exist that might better serve the interests of the research community and the public (such as preprint servers, repositories, and open publishing platforms)? How can we shift the default toward using these community-minded options?

SPARC (announcement)

​Principles of Diamond Open Access Publishing: a draft proposal – the diamond papers​

Still, Diamond OA is often seen as a mere business model for scholarly publishing: no fees for authors or readers. However, Diamond OA can be better characterized by a shared set of values and principles that go well beyond the business aspect. These distinguish Diamond OA communities from other approaches to scholarly publishing. It is therefore worthwhile to spell out these values and principles, so they may serve as elements of identification for Diamond OA communities.

Hypotheses (Johan Rooryck)

​CSE Guidance on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Tools​

Authors should disclose usage of artificial intelligence tools and machine learning tools such as ChatGPT, Chatbots, Large Language Models (LLM). CSE recommends that journals ask authors to attest at initial submission and revision to the usage of AI and describe its use in either a submission question or in the cover letter. Journals should have an explicit policy (preferably included in the Information for Authors) about the use of AI-generated text and images. Journals may want to ask for the technical specifications (name, version, model) of the LLM or AI and the method of the application (query structure, syntax). Ultimately, human authors must be accountable for all aspects of a manuscript, including the accuracy of the content that was created with the assistance of AI, the absence of plagiarism, and for appropriate attributions of such sources.

Science Editor (Jill Jackson et al)

​Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis​

The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.

Research Integrity and Peer Review (Karen B. Schmaling and Stephen A. Gallo)

​Women’s representation as authors of retracted papers in the biomedical sciences​

Women’s representation among authors of retracted papers seems slightly lower than women’s representation as authors of biomedical papers overall. Women’s underrepresentation is particularly marked for retractions due to fraud and misconduct. Gender equality among authors of biomedical papers could enhance research integrity within the scientific community in general and, hence, reduce the negative impact that retractions have on population health and trust in science.

PLOS ONE (Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes , Carinna Hockham, and Mark Woodward)

​The Journal Observatory - Connecting information on scholarly communication​

Research funders and other stakeholders are putting a significant effort into promoting open science practices in scholarly communication. But there is a lack of high-quality infrastructure that provides information on the openness, policies and procedures of scholarly journals and other publication outlets. Consequently, it can be challenging to answer questions like: how do journals organize quality assurance and peer review? How do journals support open access publishing? How do journals or preprint servers support preregistration, preprinting, and data sharing? How diverse are the editorial teams of journals? The Journal Observatory project aims to contribute to making available the information needed by these stakeholders.

Leiden Metrics

​Intended Audience and Actual Distribution: A Growing Mismatch?​

Even as the actual distribution of articles is expanding, open access publishers are considering readership and audience comparatively less than they ever have before. They are instead prioritizing authors as a result of the shift to Gold open access business models that many of them are pursuing. One result is that the value of science to the general public is not being emphasized anywhere in the value chain. And trust in science is being pursued as a problem to be solved by addressing shortcomings in research integrity rather than, also, ensuring that high-quality, trustworthy, understandable translations of science is available “to the people.”

The Scholarly Kitchen (Roger Schonfeld and Dylan Ruediger)

​Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published​

According to the latest study, researchers who agreed to comply fully with editors’ coercive requests had an acceptance rate of 85%, compared with 77% for those who complied only partially and 39% for those who refused to comply. Researchers who cave to adding undeserved citations into their papers are likely to publish in the same journals in the future and to engage in citation manipulation repeatedly. More than 68% of researchers who weren’t coerced agreed that they would be less likely to submit to coercing journals in the future, compared with 47% of those who were coerced.

Nature Index (Dalmeet Singh Chawla)

Related: Accommodating coercion: Authors, editors, and citations​

​Generative artificial intelligence, chatbots, and the Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group​

Between now and that future time, authors will learn to use AI as a natural extension to spelling and grammar tools we have long been familiar with, always with careful human supervision, as, for example, when radiologists use software that draws their attention to a suspicious area on a mammogram. Reviewers will benefit from AI tools that can flag errors in statistics, such as improper use of a test or technique, failure to define a key endpoint within a manuscript, or a “negative” outcome reported with just a p value, instead of the point measurement with confidence intervals that fully defines the outcome and value of an analysis. Editors will benefit from tools that assess originality of a work in a deeper sense than what current plagiarism software can provide.

Journal of Neurosurgery (Fred G. Barker II and James T. Rutka)

And finally...

It was great to meet some subscribers in person at the CSE meeting and to convince a few of the attendees to sign up (no arms were twisted, I promise). Please do forward this newsletter to your colleagues if you think they would enjoy it.

Until next time,

James

​

Journalology

James Butcher

The Journalology newsletter helps editors and publishing professionals keep up to date with scholarly publishing, and guides them on how to build influential scholarly journals.

Read more from Journalology

Subscribe to newsletter Hello fellow journalologists, Normal service returns this week, with a plethora of news, opinion and journal articles for your delectation. Share and enjoy. A coaching testimonial from an Editor-in-Chief I can recommend the coaching program without reservation. It’s been invaluable to be able to discuss the many issues that come up for editors. James is not only insightful but also well-organized so that the coaching is a great investment. Professor Kathryn Phillips...

5 days ago • 13 min read

Subscribe to newsletter Hello fellow journalologists, There’s two weeks’ worth of news to catch up on, as I was on vacation with my family over Easter. So I’ve adopted the same format as the previous issue, primarily to make this newsletter as concise as possible. As before, the text that follows has been pasted from news sources and is not my own. I’ve mixed in a few opinion pieces that I enjoyed and grouped similar topics (research integrity, AI etc.) together. But first, I hope you’ll...

12 days ago • 12 min read

Subscribe to newsletter Hello fellow journalologists, This week’s newsletter is presented in a slightly different format. I’ve been very busy with work and personal commitments and haven’t had the time to do a ’normal’ newsletter. What follows are the title and a brief excerpt from some of the stories that I’ve read over the past few weeks. None of the text was written by me. Hopefully it will help you to get a quick overview of what’s happened in scholarly publishing recently. News Update...

25 days ago • 8 min read