Background We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community’s preferences for the JTT. Methods We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT. Results Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: ‘factors impacting support for JTT metrics’ and ‘suggestions for user clarity.’ Conclusions Participants suggested that the publishing community’s primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.

This study examines OpenAlex's indexing of Journals Using Open Journal Systems (JUOJS), reflecting two open-source software initiatives supporting inclusive scholarly participation. By analyzing a data set of 47,625 active JUOJS, we reveal that 71% of these journals have at least one article indexed in OpenAlex. Our findings underscore the central role of Crossref DOIs in achieving indexing, with 96% of the journals using Crossref DOIs included in OpenAlex. However, this technical dependency reflects broader structural inequities, as resource-limited journals, particularly those from low-income countries (47% of JUOJS) and non-English language journals (55-64% of JUOJS), remain underrepresented. Our work highlights the theoretical implications of scholarly infrastructure dependencies and their role in perpetuating systemic disparities in global knowledge visibility. We argue that even inclusive bibliographic databases like OpenAlex must actively address financial, infrastructural, and linguistic barriers to foster equitable indexing on a global scale. By conceptualizing the relationship between indexing mechanisms, persistent identifiers, and structural inequities, this study provides a critical lens for rethinking the dynamics of universal indexing and its realization in a global, multilingual scholarly ecosystem.

Background We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community’s preferences for the JTT. Methods We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT. Results Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: ‘factors impacting support for JTT metrics’ and ‘suggestions for user clarity.’ Conclusions Participants suggested that the publishing community’s primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.

Key points The expansion of open access entails a responsibility for supporting this public access with a guide to why, in an ‘Age of Misinformation’, research may be trustworthy. Such a guide can also provide a check on predatory journals, a fear of which may be unduly limiting researchers tapping into the expanding global scale of research activity. Journal publishing platforms offer opportunities for automating the gathering and presenting of relevant data for assessing journal adherence to scholarly standards. Industry organizations, such as ORCID, Crossref, and DOAJ, offer trust and verification networks that can be employed to further strengthen scholarly publishing integrity.

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal’s prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors’ decision making. Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal’s impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

This is a case study of a digital innovation aimed at increasing researchers’, professionals’, and the general public’s ability to approach research publications with a ready method of checking its compliance with the features that set scholarly publishing apart from other sources of information. More specifically, the innovation consists of generating a “publication facts label” (PFL) for articles and journals, which records their adherence to eight elements that reflect scholarly publishing standards. The label conveys data and links for publisher identity, scholarly editorial oversight, article acceptance rates, journal indexing, expert peer review, competing interests, data availability, and research funding (Fig. 1). The PFL is modeled on the United States nutrition facts label that, since 1996, has appeared on food products, proving itself an effective science communication strategy with adoptions around the world in different formats (Christof et al., 2018; Post et al., 2010). At this point, the PFL is being developed as an open source software project by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) at Simon Fraser University for use with its Open Journal Systems. In this case study, we present the rationale, design, and assessment strategies involved in PFL development and piloting. Although the PFL is still at an early stage, we consider the lessons already learned from this approach worth introducing into the industry’s current emphasis on ways to improve research integrity.

Copyright's Broken Promise: How to Restore the Law's Ability to Promote the Progress of Science — A comprehensive proposal for reforming copyright law to ensure sustainable public access to research and scholarship.

Nosotros amábamos tanto el Acceso Abierto

This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

Nós amávamos tanto o acesso aberto

Purpose Health professions educators are increasingly called on to engage learners in more meaningful instruction. Many have used Wikipedia to offer an applied approach to engage learners, particularly learning related to evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, little is known about the benefits and challenges of using Wikipedia as a pedagogic tool from the collective experience of educators who have sought to improve their instructional practice with it. This study aims to synthesize the perspectives of health professions education (HPE) instructors on the incorporation of Wikipedia editing into their HPE courses. Method Applying a constructivist approach, the authors conducted semistructured interviews from July to December 2020, with 17 participating HPE instructors who had substantively integrated Wikipedia into their curriculum at 13 institutions. Participants were interviewed about their experiences of integrating Wikipedia editing into their courses. Thematic analysis was conducted on resulting transcripts. Results The authors observed 2 broad themes among participants’ expressed benefits of teaching with Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia provides a meaningful instructional alternative that also helps society and develops learners’ information literacy and EBM skills. Second, Wikipedia supports learners’ careers and professional identity formation. Identified challenges included high effort and time, restrictive Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, and difficult interactions with stakeholders. Conclusions Findings build on known benefits, such as providing a real-world collaborative project that contextualizes students’ learning experiences. They also echo known challenges, such as the resource-intensive nature of teaching with Wikipedia. The findings of this study reveal the potential of Wikipedia to enculturate HPE students within a situated learning context. They also present implications for HPE programs that are considering implementing Wikipedia and faculty development needed to help instructors harness crowd-sourced information tools’ pedagogic opportunities as well as anticipate their challenges.