European Science Editing

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 0258-3127 / 2518-3354
Published by: Pensoft Publishers (10.3897)
Total articles ≅ 104
Current Coverage
SCOPUS
DOAJ
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

Published: 23 November 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e75834

Abstract:
The digital age has enabled unprecedented opportunities in the dissemination of information. Thanks to the Internet, research results are available to virtually anyone in the world. Thanks to platforms such as the Open Journal System, a scientific journal can be published by practically anyone with minimal demands on resources, and even a relatively small editorial team can focus more on the quality of published articles than on the editorial process itself. Nevertheless, publishing procedures have recently been adopted which do not allow parts of readers to have seamless access to the content of scientific articles.
Joseph El Khoury, Riwa Kanj, Lynn Adam, , Abdul Jalil Hajaig, Firas Haddad,
Published: 21 October 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e72187

Abstract:
Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been consistently under-represented in the pool of contributors to academic journals on health. For the past two decades, prominent voices within the psychiatric profession have called for better representation of LMICs in the interest of advancing the understanding of mental health globally and benefiting health systems in these countries. Objective: To investigate the absolute and relative representation of authors affiliated to institutes from LMICs in the most influential journals on mental health in 2019. Method: Thirty top-ranking journals on mental health based on Scimago Journal Rank were selected, and all papers other than correspondence and letters to the editor published in those journals in 2019 were examined to extract the country of affiliation of each of their authors and their position (corresponding author, first author, second author). Results: Of the 4022 articles examined, 3720 articles (92.5%) were written exclusively by authors from high-income countries (HICs); 302 (7.5%) featured one or more authors from a LMIC along with those from HICs; 91 (2.2%) featured authors only from one LMIC; and only 3 (0.07%) featured authors from more than one LMICs but without any co-author from a HIC. The ratio of articles by contributors from LMICs to all the articles published in 2019 in a given journal ranged from 0% to 19%. Of 1855 individual contributors from 45 LMICs, 1050 (56%) were from China. Conclusion: Despite the growth of the global health movement and frequent calls for academic inclusivity, LMICs were significantly under-represented among the authors of papers published in top-ranking journals on mental health in 2019.  
Published: 19 October 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e75625

Abstract:
Human impacts on the Earth have become so pervasive as to drive global scale changes leading some scientists to propose a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. A name which reflects the huge and sweeping changes human activities have caused to the Earth. Furthermore, these rapidly expanding and accelerating activities threaten to push aspects of the Earth system beyond  the relatively stable and safe space in which the entirety of human history occurred, the Holocene. This safe operating space is characterised by a set of nine planetary boundaries1 within which humanity should be able to continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. These include: climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows and freshwater use. Crossing these boundaries risks generating large-scale, rapid or irreversible environmental changes. Reducing the environmental impact of our activities in order to keep within a safe operating space for humanity and the linked goal of providing a basic social foundation for everyone requires global actions. Every individual, company, institution and organisation, whether large or small, public or private, needs to contribute – ‘think global, act local’. Scientific publishing as a key player in discussing and disseminating research on climate heating and the biodiversity crisis has transformed from print to digital journals and e-books over recent decades but we must do more. The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of individuals and associations engaged in science communication and editing. As such, EASE can help and support its members to engage in different ways to achieve and communicate efforts to reduce our environmental footprints for example by becoming carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) irrespective of the type of organisation they work in. Below are some suggestions for how editors can take steps to reduce their environmental footprint in their own particular circumstances and thereby contribute to the overall effort to reduce environmental damages. Not all suggestions will be relevant to everyone and structural or organisational change will have a greater impact than individual actions, but together we can make a difference.
Published: 21 September 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e63780

Abstract:
Regression analysis is a widely used statistical technique to build a model from a set of data on two or more variables. Linear regression is based on linear correlation, and assumes that change in one variable is accompanied by a proportional change in another variable. Simple linear regression, or bivariate regression, is used for predicting the value of one variable from another variable (predictor); however, multiple linear regression, which enables us to analyse more than one predictor or variable, is more commonly used. This paper explains both simple and multiple linear regressions illustrated with an example of analysis and also discusses some common errors in presenting the results of regression, including inappropriate titles, causal language, inappropriate conclusions, and misinterpretation.
Published: 13 September 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e71728

Abstract:
Background: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are two internationally recognised organisations in the field of publication ethics. Guidelines from these two organisations were updated in 2018. Obj ectives: To assess the extent to which the journal P h a r ma ctuel is compliant with the guidelines on publication ethics updated by ICMJE and COPE in 2018 and, where the journal is found  wanting, to take the necessary steps to make it compliant. Methods:  A list of updated criteria – 56 by ICMJE and 22 by COPE – was compiled. In January 2020, compliance with each of these criteria was evaluated by the editor-in-chief and validated by all six associate editors. The evaluation was followed by an action plan to improve compliance, and the evaluation was repeated in November 2020. Results: Of the 56 ICMJE criteria, P h a r ma ctuel was fully compliant with 31 and partly compliant with 10 criteria (a compliance rate of 73%, taking the two together). The corresponding figures for the 22 COPE criteria were 17, 3, and 91%. By modifying its editorial policies, training its associate editors, and creating appropriate guidelines for its editorial board and editors, P h a r ma ctuel achieved almost 100% compliance by the end of 2020. Conclusions: P h a r ma ctuel has been fully compliant with ICMJE and COPE recommendations since January 2021. Minor modifications to P h a r ma ctuel’s publication process have enabled the editorial team to ensure that the journal continues to be almost totally compliant with COPE and ICMJE guidelines and to uphold its high ethical standards.
Published: 26 August 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e67829

Abstract:
‘Global South’, a term frequently used on websites and in papers related to academic and ‘predatory’ publishing, may represent a form of unscholarly discrimination. Arguments are put forward as to why the current use of this term is geographically meaningless, since it implies countries in the southern hemisphere, whereas many of the entities in publishing that are referred to as being part of the Global South are in fact either on the equator or in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, academics, in writing about academic publishing, should cease using this broad, culturally insensitive, and geographically inaccurate term.
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e59032

Abstract:
B a c kground: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases. Obj ectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences. M e th ods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design. Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting. Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact.
, Farhad Handjani, , Mehrdad Askarian, Peyman Jafari
Published: 17 June 2021
European Science Editing, Volume 47; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e62836

Abstract:
B a c kground: Peer review is a necessary but costly and time-consuming process to identify good-quality and methodologically sound articles and improve them before publication. Finding good peer reviewers is often difficult. Obj ective: To identify the incentives that make Iranian biomedical researchers accept invitations to be a peer reviewer and factors that affect these incentives. M e th ods: Twelve reviewers selected at random from the reviewers pool of each of 26 biomedical journals published from Fars province, Iran, were surveyed using a questionnaire that we had developed and tested in a pilot study of 30 reviewers (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779). The data included the reviewers’ demographics, history of their reviews, and choice of 11 reasons each for accepting or declining the invitation to review. Results: A total of 233 reviewers completed the questionnaire. The most important reasons for accepting the invitation to review were the journal’s practice to publish the names of the reviewers alongside the article they had reviewed, acknowledgement by the journals by publishing the names of reviewers once a year, free access to journals’ content, and lower publication charges as authors. The most common reasons to decline the invitation were lack of time, busy schedules, and lack of sufficient incentive to review. Conclusion: Acknowledgement by the journal, offering to publish the names of reviewers alongside the articles they had reviewed, and monetary rewards will be effective incentives for biomedical researchers in Iran to serve as peer reviewers.
Back to Top Top