Editor Seminar in Journal PublishingAttaining Excellence in Scholarly CommunicationPresented by: Anne Kitson, Executive Vice President, Health and Medical Sciences,. Elsevier

Международная научно-практическая конференция «Научное издание международного уровня: проблемы и решения при подготовке и

включении в индексы цитирования и реферативные базы данных» 15-17 мая 2012 г., ВИНИТИ РАН, Москва, Россия

Международная научно-практическая конференция «Научное издание международного уровня: проблемы и решения при подготовке и

включении в индексы цитирования и реферативные базы данных» 15-17 мая 2012 г., ВИНИТИ РАН, Москва, Россия

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing

2. Scholarly Communication in Russia

3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact

4. Improving the quality of Scientific Journals

2

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing• The start of journal publishing• The role of publishing• The journal workflow• Elsevier in publishing• Trends in Scholarly Communication

2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

3

Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677)

• Born in Germany• Resident in London from 1652• Indefatigable correspondent with

major scientists of his day• Appointed (joint) Secretary to the

Royal Society in 1663• Created (as editor and commercial

publisher) the first scientific journal in 1665

• Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

4

“natural philosophy”

mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, medicine

many hundreds of specialized fields

First journals

hundred journals

thousand journals

23 thousand journals

1665

1800

1900

2000s

Differentiation/Fragmentation

5

Relationship of Journals & Researcher Growth

More researchers more journals

0.8

1.2

1.6

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Ind

ex

(19

81

=1

.00

) US r&d workers

journals

articles

6

What do modern researchers want as authors?

• Register a discovery as theirs and made by them on a certain date

• Assert ownership and achieve priorityRegistration

• Get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality stamped by publication in a journal of known quality

• Establish a reputation, and get rewardValidation

• Let their peers know what they have done• Attract recognition and collaboration

Dissemination

• Leave a permanent record of their research• Renown, immortality

Archive

7

Elsevier has a long history of scientific publishing

The Publishing House of Elzevir was first established in 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at the University of Leiden, Holland

Among those authors who published with Elsevier are, Galileo, Erasmus, Descartes, Alexander Fleming, Julius Verne

Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by Lowys Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modern Elsevier Company in 1880

8

But there are thousands of scientific publishers

23,000

9

Examples of our 2,000 journal titles

10

Elsevier’s Journal Program today

• 1,800 journals within the STM Journals Publishing group within Elsevier• STM Journals managed by 6 publishing groups, each specializing in a cluster of subject

areas• Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios specific to a

discipline/community, e.g. Computational Intelligence. There are 146 journal portfolios in total.

11

Solicit and manage

submissionsManage

peer review

Production

Publish and disseminate

Edit and prepare

Archive and promote

use

The Elsevier Journal Publishing Cycle

• 250,000 new articles produced each year• 185 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged

12

Trends in publishing

• Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”◦ 1997: print only◦ 2005: 40% e-only (many e-collections)

30% print only30% print-plus-electronic

• Changing role of “journals” due to e-access• Increased usage of articles, at lower cost per article• Electronic submission

◦ Increased manuscript inflow• Experimentation with new publishing models

◦ E.g. “author pays” models, “delayed open access”, DeepDyve, etc.• Experimentation with new peer review models

◦ PLoS ONE, open peer review, PeerChoice, etc.

13

Online submission and publication is the norm

14

Newest tools: citation tracking and bibliometrics

15

Elsevier peer review experiments

Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC)•Enable the sharing of review reports between journals (at the author’s request) to run a more efficient and fast peer review process overall•37 journals in neuroscience across publishers and societies participate•Current uptake low (1-2%), pilot continues

Reviewer Mentorship Programme•An educational programme for postgraduate students to become certified article reviewers, based on a proven need for more reviewers, guidance on reviewing papers, and a common reviewing standard•Programme consists of three phases

• Reviewer workshop (local or virtual)• Traineeship in which trainee performs a number of reviews for an editor, under the supervision of a

mentor• Graduation and certification

•Pilot is running in biology and pharmacology areas

Assig

n m

ss

Feed

back

Host & monitor

Guidance

Submit reviews

Copy of assignments

Keep informed

Signal end

16

3-D imaging technologies3-D imaging technologies

Semantic web technologies

Semantic web technologies

Geographicalimage searchGeographicalimage search

Newest tools: imaging, discovery

17

Newest tools: Article of the Future

Traditional article structureTraditional article structure

18

Newest tools: Article of the Future

19

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia

• Article output• Citations• Regional ranking• Use of online resources

3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

20

Article publishing in Russia

# articles published % share of world articles

% share of world citations FWRI (World = 1.00)

21

CAGR ‘04-10 – 2.3%

Russia Federation: Strong Focus on Math & Physics

Publication output by subject area (2006-2010)

Russian Publication spread over discipline

23

Physics and Astronomy

ChemistryMaterial Sciences

Regional publication growth comparison

24

Regional ranking

25

Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database & Dr Carol Tenopir, UTK

Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it

Compared to print-only era• Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year• Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals

Time SpentGathering

Time SpentAnalyzing 58%

42%

48%

52%

55%

45%

45%

55%

56%

44%

42%

58%

54%

46%

58%

42%

56%

44%

51%

49%

56%

44%

47%

53%

2001 2005Fin/HR/Legal

2001 2005Sci/Eng

2001 2005Mfg/Purch

2001 2005Total

2001 2005IT

2001 2005Sales/Mktg

Global trends - Productivity Increasing following “p to e-migration”

26

University College London study confirms strong correlation between e-journal usage, research output and funding in the UK

“Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact.” Research Information Network Report. April 2009“Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact.” Research Information Network Report. April 2009

“Doubling in downloads, from 1

to 2 million, is statistically

associated with dramatic - but not

necessarily causal - increases in

research productivity”

Papers up 207%PhD awards up

168%Research grants

and contract income up 324%

Even stronger as downloads increase

further

27

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact

• Journal bibliometricso Impact Factoro Eigen factoro SCImago Journal Ranko Source-Normalized Impact per Paper

• Personal bibliometrics

4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

28

Bibliometrics at the Journal level

There are multiple ways to assess journals

Subjective methods• Reputation• Local interest• Core audience

“Objective” methods• Impact Factor• Eigenfactor• SCImago journal Ranking (SJR)• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

29

Impact FactorImpact Factor[the average annual number of citations per article published][the average annual number of citations per article published]

For example, the 2009 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as follows:• A = the number of times articles published in 2007 and 2008 were cited in indexed journals

during 2009• B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials

and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2007 and 2008 • 2009 impact factor = A/B • e.g. e.g. 600 citations600 citations = 2 = 2

150 + 150 articles150 + 150 articles

What is the Impact Factor (IF)?

30

• The Impact Factor measures all citations (numerator), irrespective of article types• Abstracts, Editorials and Letters have positive effects on the Impact Factor• The Source Item count (denominator) includes only Research Articles, Reviews

and Notes• All types of self-citations are included

Impact Factor

31

Impact Factor and other bibliometric parameters

32

Impact Factor Pros and Cons

33

Impact Factor Pros and Cons

34

Subject Area Influence on Impact Factors

35

Beyond the impact factor: new metrics

• Eigen Factor• SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

36

Eigen Factor

• Developed by Carl Bergstrom in 2007 to address some of the weaknesses of the impact factor

• “We can view the Eigenfactor score of a journal as a rough estimate of how often a journal will be used by scholars”

• Uses algorithms to assess importance of each journal (like Google page rank)• 5 year window (IF is 2)• Allows citation behavior to set fields, not pre-set fields• Counts all citations, regardless of source

37

Pros and Cons

Pros• Ranks more than journal articles• Longer citation window• Like SJR, scores based on ranking

Cons• Very large journals will have extremely high Eigenfactor scores simply based upon their

size• “Citations” not necessarily articles (peer review article? Editorial? Tabloid?)• Does not promote cross discipline comparison

38

New metrics are now available

How are these calculated39

Key features of SJR and SNIP

40

Bibliometrics at the individual level – the H-index

• Measure proposed in 2005 by the physicist Jorge E. Hirsch.

• Rates a scientist’s performance based on their career publications, as measured by the lifetime number of citations each article receives.

• Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality (number of citations) of a scientist’s publications.

• Official definition: “A scientist has index h if h of their N papers have at least h citations each, and the other (N – h) papers have no more than h citations each.”

• Translation of definition: If you list all a scientist’s publications in descending order of the number of citations received to date, their h-index is the highest number of their papers, h, that have each received at least h citations. So, their h-index is 10 if 10 papers have each received at least 10 citations; their h-index is 81 if 81 papers have each received at least 81 citations. Their h-index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1 citation, but also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations – and so on..

41

H-index

42Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences

Fig. 1. Schematic curve of number of citations versus paper number, with papers numbered in order of decreasing citations. The intersection of the 45° line with the curve gives h. The total number of citations is the area under the curve.

42

Pros and Cons

Pros• Based on citations to author’s corpus, not journal• Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus• Easy to understand and calculate

Cons• Can be biased against young researchers• Does not differentiate negative citations• Does not differentiate or weigh citing source• Does not address differences per field• Includes self citations

43

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

• How do authors choose a journal• The roles of the journal• The people involved

44

What makes great journals ?

• It is NOT technology, or big investments, or great promotion ……

• Journals are based on the communities they serve. They are like a living organism and rely on the editors, authors and reviewers that make up that community. They serve the community as long as the community can derive value from the journal. By doing so the community in turn builds greater brand value for the journal. Both the journal and the community benefit from this.

45

Four important concepts

• A journal has no value without the active support of high level scientists• Scale helps to be innovative in improving service• Top journals are international as science is international• Quality attracts quality

46

Key author needs: • certification of research,• continuation of funding and employment,• recognition and career

Author

paper

data

etc.

Reviewer

Publisher

Editor

journalbranding/ certification

Dissemination/archivingvalid

ation

Research Output

From a journal publishing perspective: responsibilities

47

How do authors choose a journal?

• They already know the subject coverage of their research paper and its quality and approach

• They select the set of most appropriate journals in terms of subject coverage and readers

• They match the general quality of their paper (best, good, ok) to a class of journals (top, average, run-of-the-mill) with the same subject and approach

• From that class they select a specific journal based upon experience• Recommendation from professor

48

How do Authors Choose a Journal?

Impact Factor

Reputation

Editorial Standard

Publication speed

Access to Audience

International Coverage

Self Evaluation

A&I Coverage

Society Link

Track Record

Quality/Colour Illustrations

Service Elements, e.g. author instructions, quality of proofs, reprints, etc

Experience as Referee

A

B

C

?

?

?

?

Marginal Factors:

Which Journal?

Key Factors:Key Factors:

Which Category?Which Category?Journal Hierarchy

J J

JJ

JJ

JJ

J

JJ

49

What matters most to Authors?

Elsevier Author Feedback Programme

And thus also critically important to editors

Refereeing Speed

Refereeing Standard

Reputation

Impact Factor

Audience/Readership

Production Speed

Editor/Editorial Board

Publishing Services

Final Quality

Role of the Journal Editor

• Public face of the journal• Decides on what gets published

◦ Type and standard of paper• Sets editorial policies

◦ With editorial board & publishers’ editor• Runs the peer review process

◦ Supported by an editorial office funded by the publisher

51

Peer Review

• A methodological check◦ Soundness of argument◦ Supporting data and cited references◦ [Sometimes] impactfulness/’importance’ of research

• Done by two anonymous academics◦ (“The reviewers”)

• Reviewers peer review without payment◦ Costs of administering the selection of reviewers, tracking and collecting reviews

are borne by the journal• On average 30% more papers are reviewed than published – Elsevier rejection rate

65%

52

Role of the Publisher

• Editorial (journal brand) management◦ Acquisition of content◦ Monitor research trends◦ Monitor editorial office efficiency and efficacy◦ Monitor key success indicators◦ Editorial renewal

• Business management• Production and online hosting• Sales and marketing

53

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

• Strategic planningoDefine your journal positiono IndexingoMarket analysiso Journal action plan

54

What makes a journal successful, once it has found a community?

1. Strategic journal management (brand management)

2. Wide visibility

3. Quality control, peer review and use of journal metrics

4. Customer feedback

55

Different journals - Different choices – Different roles

Regional

Regi

onal

International

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Authors

Read

ers

Visibility of Regional Science

Will not publish cutting edge

research

Not necessarily unimportant

Platform for Students (PhD, PostDocs)

Career making publications

International scene

Not all equally important

56

Strategic Choices

Regional

Regi

onal

International

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Authors

Read

ers

Examples: Pramana (India), Current Applied Physics (S. Korea)• Increasing number of journals (related

to global scientific development)• Limited international recognition• Regional loyalty• Generally Indexed by major indexing

services• Reasonable visibility• Variable in quality

Examples: Nature, Physical Review, Cell, and many Elsevier journals• Many journals already• International recognition• Limited regional loyalty• Indexed by major indexing services• Wide visibility• Quality above a certain minimum threshold

Example journals: Cerâmica (Brazil)• Very large number of journals• Very limited international recognition• Regional loyalty• Indexed by only a few major indexing

services• Regional visibility• Quality unclear

Example: Epidemiology• Addressing regional issues by outside

experts.• Limited number of journals, especially

health sciences• Limited international recognition• Limited visibility• Extremely fluctuating quality

57

Scopus covers “local” content for local audiences

58

Interest for inclusion in Scopus is still growing

0500

10001500200025003000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Titles submitted Titles selected

59

Quality selection by independent, international board

60

Journalpolicy

(35%)

• English language abstracts available

• All cited references in Roman alphabet

• Convincing editorial concept/policy

• Level of peer-review

• Diversity in provenance of editors

• Diversity in provenance of authors

Quality ofcontent

(20%)

• Academic contribution to the field

• Clarity of abstracts

• Conformity with journal’s aims & scope

• Readability of articlesCitedness

(25%)

• Citedness of journal articles in Scopus• Citedness of editors in Scopus

Regularity

(10%)• No delay in publication schedule

Accessibility

(10%)

• Content available online• English-language journal home page• Quality of home page

Eligibility

• Peer-review

• English abstracts

• Regular publication

Scopus selection criteria a combinationof quantitative and qualitative measures

61

Market AnalysisObjectives 2011I) Toxicology•IF increase to 2.4 • Market share US 28%•X•Y2) Pharmacology

Toxicology Letters (2011)•25 review articles published by US authors•Appoint Harvard editor •Manage rejection rate, and article flow to 2550accepted articles by 31-12•Host one reviewer workshop•Reduce editorial time to 16 wks•etc

Analysis &Objectives per segment and journal

Activities per journal

Customer feedback& other market intelligence

Elsevier S&T Strategy

S&T Journal Strategy

Portfolio strategies

MARKET

From Strategy to Action

62

Per journal: Journal

Action Plan2011

PORTFOLIO PLAN:

• Editorial policies• Per Editor: retention and

replacement strategy• Special issue &review article

strategy• Emerging areas and markets / New

journal launches• Customer (author, editor, reviewer)

services• Society opportunities• Commercial Sales opportunities• Marketing

Results in journal specific actions

Portfolio & Journal Action plans for each portfolio and journal

63

64

Example of journal action plan Journal of Scientific Research

Possible Action Current Status Desired Status Action Deadline

Impact Factor 1.650 2.300 Consider reduction in size

Editor in Chief

Quality Strong Continue as is None N/A

Editorial office/ Secretary Yes Continue as is None N/A

Deputy Editor

Quality None Succession planned Appoint deputy Editor December 2011

Editors

Quality Fair (section A) to Good (Asia) Strong Appoint new editor section A; Editor from US December 2011

Quantity 2 3 Appoint one more editor December 2011

Geographical Split Reasonable Ad US As above December 2011

EES live N/A N/A

Physical quality good good N/A

Publication Speed

Early Web Visibility No Yes implement June 2011

Refereeing (editorial) time 30 weeks 20 weeks Scopus to reviewers/ new editor August/Dec. 2011

Online Production time 10 weeks 7 weeks Agree on SLA with production March 2011

Print production time 12 weeks 9 weeks

Rejection rate 50% 50% N/A

Time to first decision 9 6 Reduce time

# of issues/ pages 2006

Special issue policy

# of special issues

Type of SI’s

Paper flow

For each journal an annual journal action plan, outlining the required actions to improve journal in line with overall strategic direction

64

• Author feedback programme => all authors are asked for feedback:

• Editor and Reviewer feedback programmes follow similar approach.

Against Benchmarks: Against Competition:

Portfolio and journal management based on market knowledge, research and continuous feedback

65

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

• Measuring Quality• Influencing impact metrics• Assessing themed issues• Uncited articles• Assessing top articles

66

QualityCan it be measured?

67

What is Quality?

• The assessment of quality and value is at the heart of the scholarly communication system

◦ Peer review for acceptance of papers◦ Judgements about the quality of a journal◦ Assessment of the work of a researcher from where s/he publishes◦ Judgements about the quality of institutions based on their publication

record ◦ Institutions now measured via a growing number of analytics tools such

as our own SciVal

68

Quality control. What types of tools are available?

• Scopus Citation Analysis• Non-cited Paper Analysis• Author Feedback Programme• Reviewer Feedback Programme• Editor Feedback Programme

69

The Refereeing Process

• Independent refereeing of submitted manuscripts is critical to the scientific publishing process in validating the quality of a piece of work.

• Referees provide◦ an objective assessment of a submission, and recommend whether a piece

of work advances the field sufficiently to warrant publication.

• Relevance, novelty • Relevant work is cited, and discussed as appropriate• Methodology is appropriate, and properly described• Conclusions are supported by the results reported• Evaluate the statistical analyses • Ensure that the paper is unambiguous and comprehensible, even if the

English is not perfect

The Referee recommends, the Editor decides

70

Finding and Keeping reviewers

• Make use of Editorial Board Members for reviewing, and consider rotating off Board Members who are not regularly refereeing

• Think twice before using referees who have not been active in research in the last 5 years

• The best referees are often young professors, researchers, post-doctorates, emeritus professors and authors who have recently published in the journal

• Reject very poor papers outright without sending them to a reviewer.• Ask referees whether they are able to review a manuscript before sending it.• Give your request a personal touch by customising template letters where possible• Develop a set of clear referee guidelines.• Notify the referees of your final decision on the paper.• Do not 'penalise' timely referees by sending them new articles for review immediately

after they have returned a set of comments.• Thank referees who are doing a good job• Develop a reviewer loyalty programme• …• …

71

How can you improve the quality of your journal as an Editor?

• Attract the best authors

• Find the best referees

• Have an efficient review process with short turnaround times

• Commission invited/review articles

• Claim “hot” areas in your discipline that are not currently “owned” by other journals by publishing a thematic issue on it

72

Improving the impact metrics

• Better papers (easier said than done)• Fewer papers• More reviews• More special issues (invited authors)• Publish invited works in January (longer citation window)• BUT DO NOT

◦ Require citations to your journal◦ Write editorials about your journal’s articles just to cite them

73

Scopus Citation Analysis

74

Scopus Issue Analysis

Citation analysis at the issue level can answer the following questions:• What is the level of citation for the issues published?• How are my special issues doing in comparison to the regular issues? • Are our review/invited articles contributing as expected?

75

Scopus Issue Analysis

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

2002 2003 2004 2005

Ave

rag

e c

itatio

ns

pe

r p

ap

er

Off scale(26.5)

AVERAGE CITATIONS PER PAPER / PER ISSUE - Regular Issue - Structural Elucidation - Thematic Issue - Festschrift issue

- Shading indicates issue contains review article(s)

76

Scopus Impact Analysis on a Specific Set of Articles

• How do citations develop in time?

• Are there specific areas that attract a higher number of citations?

• How does the number of citations relate to the number of publications?

• Perform your own bibliometric calculations

77

Non-Cited Article Analysis

78

% Non-Cited Articles per Journal

Uncited % - 5yr

Subject Category - ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES

Year - 2005

Rank Journal Uncited % - 5yr

1 FIELD ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AND TECHNOLOGY 2.78%

2 REGULATED RIVERS-RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT 4.26%

3 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 14.29%

4 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART B-CRITICAL REVIEWS 19.30%

5 APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL 22.99%

6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 23.03%

7 GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 23.49%

8 JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY 25.22%

9 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 25.34%

10 JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE 25.56%

11 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 25.89%

12 CLIMATIC CHANGE 26.03%

13 ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 26.13%

14 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 26.48%

15 WATER RESEARCH 26.58%

16 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 26.67%

17 SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 26.76%

18 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 26.80%

19 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 26.88%

20 REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT 26.98%

79

Non-cited Article Analysis

Aim

Bring down the number of uncited articles as much as possible.

Important to determine• What type of articles are most cited? • What type of articles remain uncited?

80

What are the top-cited papers?

Are there certain topics that seem to get cited a lot?

81

What are the non-cited papers?

Can you distinguish any trends in the articles that do not get cited?

82

Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Russia3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

• Policy IssuesoCopyrightoPlagiarism

83

Policy issuesSome examples

84

Plagiarism

• Editors and Publishing have seen a rise in cases of plagiarism◦ “Plagiarism” is:

• the literal copying of the entirety of another's article or paper or other text• the literal copying of large portions of another’s work• the substantive paraphrasing of another’s work

◦ In all of these cases, the authors whose work is being copied or reproduced may also have legal claims with respect to copyright infringement or violations of their moral rights.

85

Other Ethical Issues

• Some authors are also engaging in other unethical practices◦ Duplicate (Double) submission

• Submission of the same paper to more than one journal while decision from another journal is still pending

◦ Repetitive (Redundant) submission• Reporting the same results or methodologies in somewhat different form

◦ Improper authorship• Crediting individuals who did NOT provide a substantive contribution to the

research and the analysis presented • Lack of credit to individuals who DID provide a substantive contribution

◦ Lack of conflict of interest disclosure◦ Not adhering to guidelines involving treatment, consent, or privacy of research or

testing subjects

86

Conclusion

87

Conclusion

• Journal publishing is about audience and role◦ Subject, Readers and Authors

• Evaluation process is continuous• Measurables are important

◦ Submissions (Origin, Subjects, etc.)◦ Bibliometrics (H-index, Impact Factor, Citations, etc)

• Feedback from the scientific community is critical◦ Your authors, editors, reviewers and the international community

88