Hello fellow journalologists,
This week’s scholarly publishing news has been dominated by one topic. I've attempted to summarise some of the key news stories and opinions related to the new US administration’s edicts, as they relate to academic journals.
The past few weeks have been disorientating and confusing. Soon the smoke will lift and we will have a clearer view of the challenges that are facing us. Cool heads are needed. So is solidarity. Our industry is based on ethical principles honed over decades. We must stand firm and uphold good publication practice.
This week’s issue was put together at pace. There was a lot to cover. Please forgive typos and omissions; I haven’t had enough time to sift through all my usual sources. If you find the newsletter to be helpful, please forward this email to your colleagues.
News
The CDC has instructed its scientists to retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals, Inside Medicine has learned. The move aims to ensure that no "forbidden terms" appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live.
MedPage Today (Jeremy Faust)
JB: Jeremy Faust broke the story in his Substack, which you can read here. His follow up post (Censorship at the CDC. Your questions answered) is helpful.
The CDC publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ceased publishing for two weeks, the first time since it was founded in 1961, but started publishing again on Thursday. The Associated Press ran a story: 'Voice of the CDC' resumes publication, but experts worry about what they're not hearing.
Before the journal went on hiatus, the CDC was expected to soon publish articles about the bird flu outbreak. A CDC spokesperson didn’t say why the articles weren’t published this week but said they “are still in the pipeline.”
MedPage Today also ran an interview with Georges Benjamin, the publisher of the American Journal of Public Health.
“We will publish things under our guidelines, under our ethical principles,” Benjamin told Jeremy Faust, MD, acknowledging that may mean that federal government employees -- and perhaps even private-sector researchers with federal grants -- won't submit to them.
Two BMJ editors, Jocalyn Clark and Kamran Abbasi, published a scathing editorial a few days after the CDC story broke that provides much needed advocacy on the fundamentals of publication ethics: Medical journal editors must resist CDC order and anti-gender ideology
Publication ethics and professional standards define the work of medical journals, editors, and researchers. These are safeguards of best scientific practice and integrity—and will not yield to bad practice like gag orders, suppression, and authoritarian whims.
They dismiss the idea that authors can choose to retract articles because of a political directive:
Medical journals, including The BMJ, do not retract published articles on demand. We will not retract published articles on request by an author on the basis that they contain so-called banned words. Retraction occurs in circumstances where clear evidence exists of major errors, data fabrication, or falsification that compromise the reliability of the research findings. It is not a matter of author request.
They also explain that authorship should be based on contribution to the research project. Ghost contributors are not allowed.
Medically relevant terminology and inclusive language follow evidence based reporting standards or are matters of individual journal style and policy. They do not follow political orders. Similarly, co-authors cannot simply scrub themselves from articles. Authorship gives credit and accountability for the work, and an article’s list of authors does not ghost contributors. If authors wish to withdraw submissions under review at a journal, this process is feasible should all of their co-authors agree. However, if somebody who merits inclusion in the authorship group of an article requests to be removed, even with the approval of the co-authors, this is a breach of publication ethics.
A news story in Nature asked a handful of publishers what they intend to do in light of the CDC mandate. The ICMJE, JAMA and Springer Nature declined to comment; The New England Journal of Medicine said that it has no plans to modify its editorial policies.
Some organisations have been altering their websites, to remove DEI language. For example, STAT ran a story: Microbiology society removes DEI content, following Trump order.
Members are incensed that a private nonprofit institution such as the ASM, which receives some federal money but is funded largely by the journals it publishes and income from meeting registration fees, is hewing to the orders so quickly — one microbiologist termed it “anticipatory obedience” on social media, while another called it “truly sickening cowardice.”
On the same day that the CDC story broke Steven H. Woolf wrote a Viewpoint in JAMA (How Should Health Care and Public Health Respond to the New US Administration?) which had a hard hitting bottom line.
In the end, politicians and the public are free to ignore medical advice and pursue policies that compromise health and safety, and they likely will, but this does not relieve the profession of its responsibility to make the dangers clear. At the bedside, respect for the freedom of patients to make their own decisions does not excuse physicians from the obligation to present adequate information to make informed choices and to advise against options that the physician believes will do more harm than good. The duty to the population is no different. Regardless of the popularity or powerful interests behind a policy, the responsibility of the profession is to speak out when the science is clear that it will threaten health or safety. Silence is not an option.
Silence has never been an option for The Lancet's editors, who penned an editorial, published today (American chaos: standing up for health and medicine), which said the effects of the CDC edict are already noticeable:
At The Lancet, the impact has already been felt. Reviewers are declining and authors are self-censoring. Health institutions may be hesitant to criticise the new administration publicly, but this timidity is a mistake. Trump's actions must be called out for the damage they are doing.
The Lancet editors issued a call to action for the medical community, which could also be aimed at editors and publishers.
This moment is a test. How should our community react? The immediate result has been confusion, disruption, and disorientation, but the response cannot be dictated by fear or resignation. There is a need for focus, strategy, and—indeed—hope.
Some of the most strongly worded articles have come from the editors of UK-based publications. How much impact can the likes of The Lancet, The BMJ and Nature, have on what is a US issue (which has wide-ranging international consequences)?
The culture of campaigning journalism that The Lancet and The BMJ, in particular, publish often does not sit well with US readers, based on what I’ve anecdotally heard over the years.
There are times when the role of an editor, especially an editor of a medical journal, is demanding and challenging. This is certainly one of them. There is strength in solidarity. Editors and publishers from all regions must stand united with their US colleagues. Ours is a global community. We are stronger together.
The RealClearFoundation announces today the launch of the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, a revolutionary new scientific journal publishing cutting-edge, peer-reviewed and open access research from the world’s leading scholars of epidemiology, vaccinology, global public health, health policy and related disciplines.
RealClearScience (press release)
JB: The journal was co-founded by Jay Bhattacharya, who “has taken a leave of absence from the journal after Trump nominated him to run the NIH”, along with Martin Kulldorf, who published a Perspective in his new journal: The Rise and Fall of Scientific Journals and a Way Forward (the article repeats the same arguments we’ve all heard many times before; the prose is terse and uninspiring).
In case you’re wondering:
The RealClearFoundation is a donor-financed 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that carries out journalistic and educational programs in the public interest. JAPH is a nonprofit journal subsidiary.
The tax filings suggest that The RealClearFoundation generated $8.48m in revenue in fiscal year 2023 and had $9.15m of expenses. The RealClearFoundation website is sparse, to say the least.
Wired covered the story (Donald Trump's NIH Pick Just Launched a Controversial Scientific Journal).
Some experts are worried that the journal, which has links to the right-wing news site RealClearPolitics, could become a scientific mouthpiece for the Trump administration and a platform that these experts allege could publish dubious research.
This quote from the Wired story is especially concerning:
In its bylaws, the Academy of Public Health says only members can publish in the new journal. To join, you must be nominated by a current member.
The editorial board of JAPH includes a number of high-profile academics, including John Ioannidis and Peter Gøtzsche. The Disinformation Chronicle article includes a series of quotes from editorial board members, who criticise traditional journals. For example:
“This is exactly the type of journal we need to replace traditional medical journals where there is far too much censorship and vested interest among peer reviewers, editors, and owners,” said Peter Gøtzsche, a professor of clinical research at the University of Copenhagen and JAPH board member. “Some of us regard traditional journals as more or less dead.”
Another board member was scathing about The BMJ:
“You want a process to expose the research and the peer review, to allow the discourse,” said Oxford researcher Carl Heneghan, another JAPH board member. “The journals have been part of the censorship problem, taking certain lines, in favor of masks and lockdowns. The BMJ has published some terrible articles, and they should be ashamed of them and taken down.”
It’s worth remembering that The Disinformation Chronicle played a role in the demise of Laura Helmuth, the former editor of Scientific American.
The new Cochrane review draws together data from 204 existing studies assessing the (non-)publication of results for 165,135 clinical trials in scientific journals, making it the most comprehensive effort of this kind to date.
Failing to make the results of clinical trials public leaves gaps in the medical evidence base that can harm patients, undermine public health and inflate the costs of healthcare.
TranspariMed (Till Bruckner)
JB: This is an appalling statistic, which will likely get worse (see lead story).
Our aspiration was to create a useful and secure price transparency tool for assisting libraries and library consortia in their open access negotiations with all publishers. Achieving this ambition required enlisting a significant number of publishers who levy open access publishing fees to deposit their price and service data with the JCS. When the JCS was launched, 27 publishers responded positively to the call for transparent pricing of publishing services and agreed to share their data, representing over 2,000 journals. However, three years later, although the number of participating publishers has increased to 37, they represent far fewer journals – only 549 in total. Inevitably, with such limited journal coverage, relatively few librarians, library consortia and funders were motivated to register to use the service. At the end of 2024, the JCS had just 105 registered end users, who accessed the service on 163 occasions in that year.
Plan S (announcement)
JB: In this announcement Plan S blames those publishers who did not take part (or who withdrew) for the failure of this programme. There is an alternative explanation for why so few librarians registered and then returned to use the service: the initiative didn’t provide sufficient value to encourage librarians to login.
Fundamentally, the service provides little useful information. For example, let’s consider the data included in this announcement: PLOS Price Transparency Update 2024.
30% of the $3000 APC for PLOS Sustainability and Transformation went towards “price for journal and community development”, compared with 12% of $1,931 for PLOS One. OK, so what does that mean, exactly?
The Journal Comparison Service was an exercise in bureaucracy. I’m glad it’s been shuttered and not because I think transparency is a bad thing. Transparency is great (as long as it conforms to competition law). I’m less keen on opaque fuzziness that eats up valuable time.
Wiley today announced the release of ExplanAItions, a major study that explores artificial intelligence (AI) use and applications across the research process. Drawing on insights from nearly 5,000 researchers worldwide, the study extensively explores how AI is currently used, where it is positioned to make a significant impact, variations in adoption and interest, and the role publishers can play in supporting researchers’ responsible and evolving use of AI.
Wiley (press release)
JB: You can download the 38-page report here. Did you see what they did with the capital letters in the middle of ExplanAItions? cOAlition S would be proud.
Fava described “frictions” between the journal editors and publisher, such as “the very slow production time and its quality,” and the publication manager’s desire to start issuing calls for papers and commissioning articles.
The publisher’s production issues delayed the publication of articles and release of issues, Guidi said, and led to “inconsistencies and gross errors.” The publication manager also proposed strategies such as instituting special issues and using computerized tools to automatically find reviewers. The proposed strategies “did not apply to our top journal, or eventually run counter [to] its unique identity and intellectual freedom,” Guidi said. “Therefore, I generally denied those proposals, based on well-founded scientific reasons.”
Retraction Watch (Ellie Kincaid)
Frontiers, a global leader in open-access publishing, has partnered with Cassyni to launch an innovative video seminar initiative designed to strengthen journal communities, deepen author engagement, and amplify the visibility of published research. This collaboration introduces AI-powered video seminars as a seamless extension of the publishing process, creating new opportunities for authors, editors, and readers to connect and engage.
Through live and recorded seminars, Frontiers will build vibrant journal communities by bringing together authors, editors, and readers to discuss groundbreaking research. Keynote events will highlight Research Topics, giving guest editors a platform to promote emerging topics and attract high-quality submissions. Individual author seminars will enable researchers to share their findings with a global audience in an engaging video format.
Cassyni (press release)
Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) is proud to announce the launch of the IOI Fund for Network Adoption, a groundbreaking US$6-8M funding initiative dedicated to supporting the shared adoption, implementation, and expansion of open data infrastructure to foster collaborative research, with a particular focus on Africa and Latin America.
Wellcome, the Fund’s anchor contributor, together with Digital Science, the Kahle Austin Foundation, and another private philanthropy, have collectively committed $2.7M to the Fund. Together, these organizations represent a growing group unified in their commitment to strengthening the global open research ecosystem.
Invest In Open Infrastructure (announcement)
In fully OA journals, the proportion of CC BY (just over 80% of output) and CC BY-NC-ND (around 10%) has been steady since 2018. CC BY fell back slightly in 2023, and that of CC BY-NC-ND grew slightly – but both by just 1 percentage point, so it’s too soon to tell if this represents a change to long-term trends. The proportion of CC BY-NC-ND licenses grew slightly: from 10% in 2021 and 2022 to 12% in 2023.
OASPA (announcement)
JB: The information about licensing type is especially important. Will more restrictive licenses become more prevalent as publishers (and researchers) seek to monetise AI use?
I presented the below slide at the APE conference last month (2024 data have been updated since then).
According to Dimensions (Digital Science), Hybrid OA fell by -12% in 2024 compared with 2023 and “Gold” fell by -1.6%. Those numbers may well change as more articles are added to the database.
“Closed” articles increased by 34% in 2024 compared with 2023. That number will likely decrease as “Closed” articles become “Bronze” over time (some journals put subscription content in front of the paywall after a year, for example).
I’m finalising a presentation, which I’ll share once it’s complete, that does a deep dive into the trends of the past 25 years. The red dotted line on the graph below was “eyeballed” and is not a regression line.
In this article, we report on a project initiated by three publishing industry associations to aggregate, normalise, and analyse public job postings and internal position descriptions in scholarly publishing. After gathering more than 1000 unique descriptions, a group of knowledgeable volunteers qualitatively coded them. Researchers from the University of Michigan checked for data consistency and analysed the job description corpus. Preliminary visualisations highlight the skills that suit potential applicants for various publishing positions and the skills that are most important to build for advancement. The findings can inform the development of products to make publishing a more equitable industry, such as interactive tools to match individuals with types of publishing jobs, well-formed template positions, and training programs that address skills gaps.
Learned Publishing (Lauretta S. P. Cheng et al)
JB: There’s little standardisation of job titles in scholarly publishing or the skills required to do them. Three organisations created a joint Career Progression Task Force in 2022. The results were published in Learned Publishing this week. The three questions the researchers asked were:
➡️ What skills do you need to enter the publishing profession?
➡️ Within job categories, how do required skills and responsibilities change as you advance in the field?
➡️ Given a job position or set of skills, what other scholarly publishing roles are similar in terms of requirements?
The authors conclude:
Our systematic analysis of a large body of position descriptions shows how employers are consistently looking for distinctive sets of skills for different sorts and levels of position. However, the structures for recruiting, publishing education, and career development do not currently prioritise skills identification and development."
This quote seems especially important given the times we’re living in:
Given Publishing's lack of diversity, we are particularly excited by the opportunity that the more skills-based framing to career progression could advance equitable access to publishing jobs, resulting in gains for the industry and society as a whole.
This month we launch the first feature that helps users of CENTRAL (Cochrane’s database of trials) on the Cochrane Library better identify retracted publications in CENTRAL. When a user of Search Manager conducts a search, and views results in the Trials tab, if their search results contain records to papers retracted by the publisher a banner will appear, alerting them:
This will mean that when conducting a search for a review, it will be easier to identify known retracted publications. Why do we say ‘known’ retracted publications? In practice, “Although a journal may retract a publication, the communication of that retraction is often incomplete, both in the use of vague retraction notices with euphemistic language and the inconsistent and ineffective annotation of retracted publications.” (Bakker, Boughtib, & Faggion, 2024).
Cochrane (announcement)
The pilot – ProRata’s first with a scientific publisher – will initially include peer-reviewed articles from AAAS’s open-access journal Science Advances, as well as stories from Science Magazine’s award-winning news team. Combined, these research and news pieces cover a broad range of scientific developments, and their inclusion in results generated by Gist.ai will help more people – researchers, educators, science enthusiasts, and beyond – find relevant and accurate insights.
AAAS (press release)
JB: This is interesting because Science Advances is open access and so ProRata does not need to ask permission to use the content (depending on how you interpret a CC BY licence, of course). When queried about this on LinkedIn, Josh Freeman, who works for ProRata, said:
We believe strongly that content creators must receive fair credit and sustainable compensation when their content is used in generative AI. It happens in all other digital media - YouTube, Spotify, the Apple and Google app stores - it needs to happen in generative AI as well.
Two years after announcing an ambitious plan to improve research reproducibility, SciScore, is excited to announce the successful implementation of structured Key Resource tables for preprints, funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). Now available for all bioRxiv preprints, these tables provide clear, accessible information on research resources used in studies—advancing transparency and linking critical materials to Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) that enhance resource findability.
SciScore (press release)
About 20,000 scientists are publishing an “implausibly high” number of papers in scholarly journals and have an unusually high number of new collaborators, a new study suggests.
The analysis, published in December in Accountability in Research, analyzed the publication patterns of around 200,000 researchers on Stanford University’s list of top 2% scientists, which is based on citation metrics.
It found that around 10% of those on the list—around 20,000 scientists—published an improbable number of papers. Some produced hundreds of studies per year with hundreds to thousands of new coauthors annually.
Chemical & Engineering News (Dalmeet Singh Chawla)
Sage has retracted 416 articles from the Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems (JIFS), which had a mass retraction of over 450 papers last August.
Before the mass retraction last year, which we covered, Sage paused publication of new articles from the journal, which it acquired when it bought IOS Press in 2023. The journal is now accepting new submissions, according to a Sage spokesperson.
Retraction Watch (Avery Orrall)
Other news stories
Celebrating a Decade of Openness: CHORUS Transforms Scholarly Communication with Industry Experts Advancing Open Research, One Milestone at a Time
Journal updates retraction notice to include plagiarism following Retraction Watch report
Want to get a species protected? Publish in a small, niche journal
Thousands of highly cited scientists have at least one retraction
Retraction Watch retractions now in the Crossref API
Clear Skies and DataSeer announce joint strategic partnership with HighWire Press
David Nygren Joins Silverchair as Chief Business Development Officer to Drive Global Expansion
Anatomy of a retraction: When cleaning up the literature takes six years
Former student was running a paper mill, says University of Manchester
Integrating OpenAlex metadata to improve Open Science Indicators
Silverchair Expands Universe Program to Accelerate Platform Integration & Innovation
JMIR Publications Announces New CEO
Become a better leader: the Journalology coaching programme
Scholarly publishing needs leaders. Do you aspire to be one of them? Are you communicating effectively within your organisation and externally? Does your team work cohesively to provide the best possible author experience? Do you have a clear strategy that you’re able to execute?
Most coaches work across multiple industries and are unable to provide useful insight into scholarly publishing. The Journalology coaching programme is different. I’ve got a proven track record, as both an editor and as a publisher, and can help you to create more impactful journals and get better at your craft.
|
And finally...
It seems appropriate to end this email with a plug for this event from C4DISC.
The Steering Committee would like to invite you to participate in a Rapid Response Sprint on Thursday, February 13. See below for details.
Purpose: To assemble resources and provide support to C4DISC member and partner organizations and community members as they respond to the current political landscape around DEIA work.
Until next time,
James
