Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38577226›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2023

Deficient editorial practices, perceived quality, and expedient scholarly publishing in a developing nation.

Amin Bredan, Osama Tashani, Omran Bakoush

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Amin BredanIndependent researcher, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium.
Osama TashaniMENA Research Group, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, England, UK.
Omran BakoushCollege of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, 15551, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1447-9836
Leeds Beckett University · GBUnited Arab Emirates University · AEUniversity College Ghent · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is increasing concern about the quality, integrity, and accessibility to research published in the developing world. This study explores the editorial practices and editors' perspectives to gain insight into the standard of scholarly publishing in Libya. Methods: Between 21 Results: 48 EC completed the questionnaire. The EC was affiliated with the institution that owns the journal in 92% of cases. Most EC (83%) were satisfied with the peer-review quality, 69% believed that most of their published papers add new ideas or findings, and 96% were satisfied with their journal's performance. However, despite the high degree of satisfaction, only one journal was indexed in Web of Science or Scopus and only 17% of the journals were indexed in Google Scholar. A qualitative assessment of journal websites revealed shortcomings in publishing practices in a large proportion of the journals. Conclusions: The discordance between the satisfaction of the journal editors and the journal quality indicators points to a break in the quality system of Libyan academic publishing. Similar expedient publishing practices might exist in other countries as well. A comprehensive action plan led by academic institutions to enforce high standards for scholarly publishing is needed to advance research and high-quality scholarly publications in developing countries.

Indexed as

PublishingScholarly CommunicationBibliometricsDeveloping CountriesPeer ReviewCitation counts; Journal affiliation; scholarly publishing; Science editors; Libya

Identifiers

PMID38577226
PMCPMC10993009
OpenAlexW4393056938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.