bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒04‒11
thirty-five papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2021 ;7 e387
      While the publication of Linked Data has become increasingly common, the process tends to be a relatively complicated and heavy-weight one. Linked Data is typically published by centralized entities in the form of larger dataset releases, which has the downside that there is a central bottleneck in the form of the organization or individual responsible for the releases. Moreover, certain kinds of data entries, in particular those with subjective or original content, currently do not fit into any existing dataset and are therefore more difficult to publish. To address these problems, we present here an approach to use nanopublications and a decentralized network of services to allow users to directly publish small Linked Data statements through a simple and user-friendly interface, called Nanobench, powered by semantic templates that are themselves published as nanopublications. The published nanopublications are cryptographically verifiable and can be queried through a redundant and decentralized network of services, based on the grlc API generator and a new quad extension of Triple Pattern Fragments. We show here that these two kinds of services are complementary and together allow us to query nanopublications in a reliable and efficient manner. We also show that Nanobench makes it indeed very easy for users to publish Linked Data statements, even for those who have no prior experience in Linked Data publishing.
    Keywords:  Linked data; Nanopublications; Semantic Web; Semantic publishing
  2. Learn Publ. 2021 Jan;34(1): 43-48
      Challenges of the current environment are balanced by opportunities - more digital delivery, more efficient systems, greater collaboration.Consumption has not reduced, but delivery mechanisms need adaptation to ensure the right products in the right media are offered and delivered.Changes to the cost base by redeploying staff and rethinking premises are underway and support improved resource allocation.Leadership is required to accommodate adaptive and flexible remote working.Ensuring access and implementing licences that permit non-commercial use is both a moral and a practical response.
  3. Proc Biol Sci. 2021 Apr 14. 288(1948): 20202581
      Words are the building blocks of communicating science. As our understanding of the world progresses, scientific disciplines naturally enrich their specialized vocabulary (jargon). However, in the era of interdisciplinarity, the use of jargon may hinder effective communication among scientists that do not share a common scientific background. The question of how jargon limits the transmission of scientific knowledge has long been debated but rarely addressed quantitatively. We explored the relationship between the use of jargon and citations, using 21 486 articles focusing on cave research, a multidisciplinary field particularly prone to terminological specialization, and where linguistic disagreement among peers is frequent. We demonstrate a significant negative relationship between the proportion of jargon words in the title and abstract and the number of citations a paper receives. Given that these elements are the hook to readers, we urge scientists to restrict jargon to sections of the paper where its use is unavoidable.
    Keywords:  glossary; linguistics; scientific communication; scientific writing; specialized vocabulary; terminology
  4. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(4): e0248753
      INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.METHODS: A sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.
    RESULTS: We identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).
    CONCLUSION: To improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.
  5. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 Apr 07. e13569
      In January 2020, both authors became Editors of the peer-reviewed European Journal of Clinical Investigation (EJCI). After one year, we feel it is time for a first balance of our activities. The COVID-19 pandemic deeply impacted not only on the editorial work, but also in all our professional and private lives. As Medical Doctors, every day we were involved in patients' care during this pandemic. As new Scientific Editors, we not only received a huge amount of COVID-19-related submissions (N=195), but also non-COVID-19 submissions increased tremendously (N=1101).
  6. Cureus. 2021 Feb 27. 13(2): e13594
      Objective The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has infected millions worldwide and impacted the lives of many folds more. Many clinicians share new Covid-19-related resources, research, and ideas within the online Free Open Access to Medical Education (FOAM) community of practice. This study provides a detailed content and contributor analysis of Covid-19-related tweets among the FOAM community during the first months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants In this social media content analysis study, Twitter was searched from November 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, for English tweets discussing Covid-19 in the FOAM community. Tweets were classified into one of 13 pre-specified content categories: original research, editorials, FOAM resource, public health, podcast or video, learned experience, refuting false information, policy discussion, emotional impact, blatantly false information, other Covid-19, and non-Covid-19. Further analysis of linked original research and FOAM resources was performed. One-thousand (1000) randomly selected contributor profiles and those deemed to have contributed false information were analyzed. Results The search yielded 8541 original tweets from 4104 contributors. The number of tweets in each content category were: 1557 other Covid-19 (18.2%), 1190 emotional impact (13.9%), 1122 FOAM resources (13.1%), 1111 policy discussion (13.0%), 928 advice (10.9%), 873 learned experience (10.2%), 424 non-Covid-19 (5.0%), 410 podcast or video (4.8%), 304 editorials (3.6%), 275 original research (3.2%), 245 public health (2.9%), 83 refuting false information (1.0%), and 19 blatantly false (0.2%). Conclusions Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the FOAM community used Twitter to share Covid-19 learned experiences, online resources, crowd-sourced advice, and research and to discuss the emotional impact of Covid-19. Twitter also provided a forum for post-publication peer review of new research. Sharing blatantly false information within this community was infrequent. This study highlights several potential benefits from engaging with the FOAM community on Twitter.
    Keywords:  covid-19; free open access medical education; knowledge translation; medical education; pandemic; social media
  7. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Apr 03. pii: S1865-9217(21)00029-5. [Epub ahead of print]
      INTRODUCTION: Scientific evidence in medicine is based on data generated from research. Recently, the number of scientifically active physicians has decreased, which has led to the development of the Clinician Scientist Programs. To better structure and focus the research of young physicians, we aimed to investigate the impact of collaborations and other factors on the quality and output of scientific publications.METHODS: The abstracts of three annual congresses of the German Society of Urology were systematically analysed regarding content, collaborations, and study design. Full-text publications and journals were identified through a MEDLINE® search. Impact factors (IFs) were identified using Journal Citation Reports™. To identify factors which predict publication and IFs, χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the best model for publication success for an abstract as well as the achievement of a high IF.
    RESULTS: 1,074 abstracts were reviewed. The publication rate of subsequent peer-reviewed full-text publications was 52.5%. Collaborations with at least one institution (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-2.76, p <0.0001), statistical analysis (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41-2.60, p <0.0001), study design (prospective vs. retrospective: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.93, p=0.021), and national collaborations (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04-1.98, p=0.029) increased the likelihood of publication in a peer-reviewed journal in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Experimental design (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.32-5.84, p=0.007), international collaborations (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.23-4.15, p=0.009), oncologic topics (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.23-3.07, p=0.005), prostate disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.84, p=0.023), and statistical analysis (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.06-2.64, p=0.026) were associated with a higher IF.
    CONCLUSION: Abstracts resulting from collaborative research projects had a higher likelihood of subsequent full-text publication and a higher IF. More full-text publications were reported when abstracts included a statistical analysis. Hence, intensive networking (e. g. at congresses and workshops) of researching physicians as well as statistical/biometrical classes could be key factors to improve academic success.
    Keywords:  Academic success; Akademischer Erfolg; Career choice; Congresses as topic; Curriculum; Journal Impact Factor; Journal impact factor; Karrierewahl; Kongresse als Thema; Medical graduate education; Medizinische Graduiertenausbildung
  8. J Hand Surg Am. 2021 Apr 04. pii: S0363-5023(21)00101-5. [Epub ahead of print]
      PURPOSE: The relationship between social media postings and academic citations of hand surgery research publications is not known. The objectives of this study were (1) to quantify adoption of social media for the dissemination of original research publications by 3 hand surgery journals, and (2) to determine the correlation between social media postings and academic citations in recent hand surgery research publications.METHODS: An Internet-based study was performed of all research articles from 3 hand surgery journals published from January 2018 to March 2019. A final sample of 472 original full-length scientific research articles was included. For each article, the total number of social media postings was determined using Twitter, as well as the number of tweets, number of retweets, number of tweets from an official outlet, and number of tweets from an author. The number of academic citations for each article was determined using Google Scholar.
    RESULTS: Average number of academic citations per article was 3.9. Average number of social media posts per article was 3.2, which consisted of an average of 1.3 tweets and 1.9 retweets per article. The number of academic citations per article was weakly correlated with the number of social medial postings, the number of tweets, and the number of retweets. The number of tweets from an official outlet and from an author were weakly correlated with academic citation.
    CONCLUSIONS: In the early adoption of social media for the dissemination of hand surgery research, there is a weak correlation between social media posting of hand surgery research and academic citation.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future studies are needed to assess whether social media posting of hand surgery research results in academic citations at the longer time intervals necessary for research publication maturity.
    Keywords:  Citation; on-line; research; retweet; social media
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Apr 13. pii: e1912444117. [Epub ahead of print]118(15):
      Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.
    Keywords:  data reasoning; disinformation; fake news; misinformation; science communication
  10. Front Sports Act Living. 2021 ;3 648929
    Keywords:  abstract; article writing; creating a scientific manuscript; effective scientific writing; optimizing research presentation; organizing your scientific article; writing research articles for maximal impact; writing science
  11. Biophys Rev. 2021 Mar 31. 1-5
      Run by the International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (IUPAB) and published by Springer Nature, Biophysical Reviews is an international journal dedicated to publishing topical review articles in the areas of (i) biology-related physics, (ii) structural biology, and (iii) molecular biology. This Editorial for Volume 13, Issue 2 of Biophysical Reviews provides a brief summary of the contents of the current Issue and then describes some matters important to the journal for 2021.
  12. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Jan;19(1): e108417
      Publishing in peer-reviewed high-quality journals is a gold standard method for disseminating scientific work. Choosing the right journal is one of the most important and difficult aspects of publishing research results. Submitting to an inappropriate journal is one of the most common reasons for fast rejection of manuscripts, resulting in time wasted by the authors and journals' editors. Here, we discuss important factors that should be considered for choosing the right journal to get your work published successfully and effectively. The most important factors for journal targeting are: (1) The journal's characteristics, including its scientific prestige, performance, publishing model, acceptance possibility, and specialty; (2) the manuscript's characteristics, including its relevance to the journal's aim and scope, its intrinsic value, meaning the novelty of the research, soundness of the methodology, potential impact in the field, and its implication; and (3) authors' priorities and limitations.
    Keywords:  Medical Journal; Publishing; Scientific Writing
  13. Learn Publ. 2021 Jan;34(1): 17-24
      University presses occupy a distinctive field of publishing, heavily tied to the fortunes of the universities and colleges in which they are usually situated. COVID-19 has catalysed their adoption of digital technologies; focused their commitments to social justice; and given new impetus to business models and formats that fully leverage the Internet, especially open access. Economic pressures on higher education that seem set only to increase are also driving university presses to more interdependent approaches and an emphasis on the contributions of the university press network to knowledge infrastructure for the humanities and social sciences. This article explores how university presses have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular reference to the experiences of the University of Michigan Press. It concludes that the diversity of types of university presses is one of the greatest strengths of this field of publishing and makes it resilient in a time of unprecedented change.
    Keywords:  COVID‐19; academic books; diversity; library market; monograph; open access; university press
  14. Learn Publ. 2021 Jan;34(1): 68-70
      The scholarly publishing industry must be prepared to step back, consider our value, reset our relationships, and be prepared to accept and embrace real change.Three areas of focus during these times should be (1) the importance of community; (2) racism, bias, and structural inequities; and (3) openness, transparency, and trust.We need to recognize the importance of the humanities and social sciences, as well as of science, technology, and medicine in addressing the impacts of the pandemic.
  15. Transl Behav Med. 2021 Apr 05. pii: ibab023. [Epub ahead of print]
      Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of research findings to improve health outcomes. Often, partnerships between community and academicians do not include research dissemination plans, possibly reflecting researchers not knowing how to create these plans. This manuscript details the development process of a research dissemination training module for academicians and researchers. This training was conceptualized and developed by Core faculty and staff. Development steps were: (a) identifying researchers' dissemination needs using the Core Investigator Survey; (b) identifying communities dissemination needs/preferences using feedback from our community advisory board; (c) conducting a literature search to identify dissemination concepts from researchers and community perspectives; (d) developing the training module; (e) conducting a cognitive review with one basic science researcher and one community-based participatory researcher; (f) evaluating the training; and (g) finalizing the training module. Training attendees included 1 clinical and 3 basic science clinical researchers, a biomedical postdoctoral fellow, and 10 research staff. Of those completing the feedback survey, 60% had some experience with research dissemination. As a result of training, more than 50% of respondents strongly agreed that as researchers they have a clear understanding of dissemination, a greater understanding of the dissemination process, how to identify stakeholders and successfully develop a dissemination plan. While disseminating research findings beyond academic publications may be new to some researchers, this training provided the tools to implement dissemination practices in their current and future research.
    Keywords:  Community; Development; Dissemination; Researchers; Training
  16. HNO. 2021 Apr 07.
      In 1864, the worldwide oldest journal in an area of the later established specialty of otorhinolaryngology was founded as the German Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde ("Archive of Otology") by its first editors Anton von Tröltsch (Würzburg), Adam Politzer (Vienna), and Hermann Schwartze (Halle/S.). Ear, nose, and throat (ENT) topics had previously been published in universal medical journals. In the next few decades, numerous journals in the field of ENT were founded, the eventful history of which is presented up to the present day. Particular attention is paid to the historical and personal context of the editors of newly founded magazines and their publishers. The journal landscape, which was changing through acquisitions and mergers of publishers, is described in detail. The merging of the specialties of otology and laryngo-rhinology in Germany, which lasted until the 1920s, had a profound influence on journal titles and contents. An attempt is made to present the most important titles in their historical development. All the important editors of the German ENT journals are mentioned, although it was not possible to include the names of the editors of the current journals, which are becoming more and more numerous. One chapter deals exclusively with the development of journal publishers. The inserted tables and figures will help to resolve some of the confusion caused by repeated similar names of journals by showing their historical development.
    Keywords:  Information dissemination; Journals as topic; Medical journalism; Scholarly Communication; Serial publications
  17. Rev Med Interne. 2021 Apr 06. pii: S0248-8663(21)00405-7. [Epub ahead of print]
      The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct.
    Keywords:  Academic spam email; Ethique de la publication; Open access publication; Predatory journals; Publication en libre accès; Publication ethics; Revues prédatrices; Spam académique
  18. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Mar 09. pii: S0022-5223(21)00434-7. [Epub ahead of print]
  19. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr 05. pii: S0002-9394(21)00151-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      PURPOSE: To describe the newer predatory movement within academia: predatory conferences and its associated characteristics.DESIGN: Perspective METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic.
    RESULTS: While ophthalmology and vision science are often spared from falling prey to predatory organizations, it is important for scientists of all levels, from trainees to senior faculty, to be aware of the existence of for-profit conferences and their characteristics.
    CONCLUSION: We discuss the details of predatory conferences and provide resources to help identify such meetings for all scientists and professionals.
    Keywords:  meetings; predatory conferences; predatory publishing
  20. Zdr Varst. 2021 Jun;60(2): 79-81
      We live in an age of information revolution, where trends in informing physicians and the lay public bring new challenges that must be faced by healthcare professionals. Predatory journals and fake conferences are common. Social media is full of false information, which results in serious public health damage. Therefore, it is important that health professionals communicate properly with the public and patients and that they address the education of both the public and other health professionals.
    Keywords:  evidence-based medicine; fake medicine; infodemic; misinformation; predatory journals
  21. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Apr;64 102211
      •The implementation of double- or triple-blind review practices will ensure that authors with worthwhile and prominent research will have fair and equitable review regardless of their prominence in the field.•Improving the quality of our reviews and raising the standings of our publishing authors. This makes way for healthy competition and a drive to produce high quality research.•It is our responsibility to limit or eliminate bias by promoting impartiality and increasing the level of transparency between the editorial teams and authors, allowing peer review to be more inclusive, instructional, and equitable.
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Bias; Doubleblind; Editorial boards; Peer review process; Single blind peer-review process
  22. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(4): e0249879
      This study compares publication pattern dynamics in the social sciences and humanities in five European countries. Three are Central and Eastern European countries that share a similar cultural and political heritage (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland). The other two are Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, representing Western Europe and the Nordics, respectively. We analysed 449,409 publications from 2013-2016 and found that, despite persisting differences between the two groups of countries across all disciplines, publication patterns in the Central and Eastern European countries are becoming more similar to those in their Western and Nordic counterparts. Articles from the Central and Eastern European countries are increasingly published in journals indexed in Web of Science and also in journals with the highest citation impacts. There are, however, clear differences between social science and humanities disciplines, which need to be considered in research evaluation and science policy.
  23. Spinal Cord. 2021 Apr 07.
      Peer reviewing is a key mechanism underlying science publishing, but during their graduate training clinicians and researchers are unlikely to be taught the skill. This paper sets forth the art of peer reviewing in general, and the types of reviews that are most useful to the Editors of Spinal Cord (SC). The topics addressed are: the SC editorial process; the role of the referee; review process steps; the content and language of a review; and resources available to peer reviewers.
  24. Learn Publ. 2021 Jan 12.
      We identified 651 research outputs on the topic of COVID-19 in the form of preprint, report, journal article, dataset, and software/code published by Imperial College London authors between January to September 2020. We sought to understand the distribution of outputs over time by output type, peer review status, publisher, and open access status. Search of Scopus, the institutional repositories, Github, and other databases identified relevant research outputs, which were then combined with Unpaywall open access data and manually-verified associations between preprints and journal articles. Reports were the earliest output to emerge [median: 103 days, interquartile range (IQR): 57.5-129], but journal articles were the most commonly occurring output type over the entire period (60.8%, 396/651). Thirty preprints were identified as connected to a journal article within the set (15.8%, 30/189). A total of 52 publishers were identified, of which 4 publishers account for 59.6% of outputs (388/651). The majority of outputs were available open access through gold, hybrid, or green route (66.1%, 430/651). The presence of exclusively non-peer reviewed material from January to March suggests that demand could not be met by journals in this period, and the sector supported this with enhanced preprint services for authors. Connections between preprints and published articles suggests that some authors chose to use both dissemination methods and that, as some publishers also serve across both models, traditional distinctions of output types might be changing. The bronze open access cohort brings widespread 'free' access but does not ensure true open access.
  25. Learn Publ. 2021 Feb 03.
      Contradicting expectations, a non-medical journal received increasing submissions during the pandemic, even though laboratories remained closed.Peer reviewers and handling editors were both more responsive and provided faster turnaround times during 2020.The reasons for increased submission to the journal may have been due to reanalysis of older data or extracting more findings from research done pre-pandemic.
    Keywords:  Covid‐19; peer review; processing time; submission
  26. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2020 ;6 e299
      Computer Science researchers rely on peer-reviewed conferences to publish their work and to receive feedback. The impact of these peer-reviewed papers on researchers' careers can hardly be overstated. Yet conference organizers can make inconsistent choices for their review process, even in the same subfield. These choices are rarely reviewed critically, and when they are, the emphasis centers on the effects on the technical program, not the authors. In particular, the effects of conference policies on author experience and diversity are still not well understood. To help address this knowledge gap, this paper presents a cross-sectional study of 56 conferences from one large subfield of computer science, namely computer systems. We introduce a large author survey (n = 918), representing 809 unique papers. The goal of this paper is to expose this data and present an initial analysis of its findings. We primarily focus on quantitative comparisons between different survey questions and comparisons to external information we collected on author demographics, conference policies, and paper statistics. Another focal point of this study is author diversity. We found poor balance in the gender and geographical distributions of authors, but a more balanced spread across sector, experience, and English proficiency. For the most part, women and nonnative English speakers exhibit no differences in their experience of the peer-review process, suggesting no specific evidence of bias against these accepted authors. We also found strong support for author rebuttal to reviewers' comments, especially among students and less experienced researchers.
    Keywords:  Author survey; Computer Systems; Peer Review; Researcher Diversity
  27. Cureus. 2021 Feb 26. 13(2): e13564
      Introduction The scientific merit of a paper and its ability to reach broader audiences is essential for scientific impact. Thus, scientific merit measurements are made by scientometric indexes, and journals are increasingly using published papers as open access (OA). In this study, we present the scientometric data for journals published in clinical allergy and immunology and compare the scientometric data of journals in terms of their all-OA and hybrid-OA publication policies. Methods Data were obtained from Clarivate Analytics InCites, Scimago Journal & Country Rank, and journal websites. A total of 35 journals were evaluated for bibliometric data, journal impact factor (JIF), scientific journal ranking (SJR), Eigenfactor score (ES), and Hirsch index (h-index). US dollars (USD) were used for the requested article publishing charge (APC). Results The most common publication policy was hybrid-OA (n = 20). The median OA publishing APC was 3000 USD. Hybrid-OA journals charged a higher APC than all-OA journals (3570 USD vs. 675 USD, p = 0.0001). Very strong positive correlations were observed between SJR and JIF and between ES and h-index. All the journals in the h-index and ES first quartiles were hybrid-OA journals. Conclusion Based on these results, we recommend the use of SJR and ES together to evaluate journals in clinical allergy and immunology. Although there is a wide APC gap between all-OA and hybrid-OA journals, all journals within the first quartiles for h-index and ES were hybrid-OA. Our results conflict with the literature stating that the OA publication model's usage causes an increase in citation counts.
    Keywords:  allergy and immunology; hypersensitivity; medical research; open access publishing; scientometrics
  28. Biophys J. 2021 Apr 04. pii: S0006-3495(21)00282-4. [Epub ahead of print]
  29. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021 Jan-Mar;21(1):21(1): 1-2