The strain on scientific publishing (2309.15884v2)

Abstract: Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. Total articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science have grown exponentially in recent years; in 2022 the article total was approximately ~47% higher than in 2016, which has outpaced the limited growth - if any - in the number of practising scientists. Thus, publication workload per scientist (writing, reviewing, editing) has increased dramatically. We define this problem as the strain on scientific publishing. To analyse this strain, we present five data-driven metrics showing publisher growth, processing times, and citation behaviours. We draw these data from web scrapes, requests for data from publishers, and material that is freely available through publisher websites. Our findings are based on millions of papers produced by leading academic publishers. We find specific groups have disproportionately grown in their articles published per year, contributing to this strain. Some publishers enabled this growth by adopting a strategy of hosting special issues, which publish articles with reduced turnaround times. Given pressures on researchers to publish or perish to be competitive for funding applications, this strain was likely amplified by these offers to publish more articles. We also observed widespread year-over-year inflation of journal impact factors coinciding with this strain, which risks confusing quality signals. Such exponential growth cannot be sustained. The metrics we define here should enable this evolving conversation to reach actionable solutions to address the strain on scientific publishing.

• The paper quantifies a 47% growth in articles from 2016 to 2022 and identifies leading publishers as key drivers of this surge.
• The paper reveals that the rise of special issues and uniform short turnaround times may compromise the rigor of peer review.
• The paper introduces the impact inflation metric (IF/SJR ratio) to highlight how citation practices and lower rejection rates inflate journal prestige.

Analysis of the Strain on Scientific Publishing

The paper "The Strain on Scientific Publishing" by Hanson et al. provides a comprehensive analysis of the increasing pressures faced by the academic publishing ecosystem. The exponential growth of peer-reviewed articles, which has increased by approximately 47% from 2016 to 2022, has not been paralleled by a corresponding increase in the training of researchers. This phenomenon is identified as the "strain on scientific publishing."

Core Findings

The paper identifies five critical metrics to understand this strain: total article growth, prevalence of special issues, article turnaround times, journal rejection rates, and citation behaviors leading to impact inflation. Data from millions of papers indexed in Scopus and Web of Science were utilized, focusing on leading academic publishers' behaviors.

1. Publisher Contribution to Article Growth: The paper reveals that publishers like MDPI and Elsevier are central to article growth, accounting for over 70% of the increase since 2016. This is particularly noticeable in the substantial use of special issues by specific publishers like MDPI and Hindawi.
2. Special Issues: Special issues have become a strategy for some publishers, facilitating expedited publications with potentially lower editorial standards. These issues often involve guest editors and have seen disproportionate growth compared to regular publications.
3. Turnaround Times and Rejection Rates: The paper documents decreased and increasingly uniform turnaround times in publishers relying heavily on special issues, such as MDPI. This reduction in editorial time raises concerns about the rigor of peer review. Additionally, rejection rate trends appear to be publisher-specific, with certain publishers exhibiting declining rates as special issue prevalence increases.
4. Impact Inflation: With citation count as a primary prestige metric, there's been a noted increase in impact factors due to citation inflation tactics, such as self-citation and citation cartels. The novel metric of "impact inflation" (IF/SJR ratio) reveals significant disparities, particularly pronounced in MDPI and Hindawi.

Implications

The paper highlights how the publishing industry's current trajectory poses risks to academic rigor and trust. The push from researchers to fulfill "publish or perish" mandates compounds with publishers' strategies for maximizing output, leading to inflated impact factors and potentially compromised quality.

From a theoretical standpoint, the research elucidates the complex interplay between publishers, funders, and researchers. The findings call for transparency and standardized methodologies in rejection rates and impact assessments. Practically, the paper suggests that addressing these issues requires targeted action at publisher and policy levels rather than broad changes to publishing models, such as open access.

Future Directions

Future discussions and interventions should consider:

• Developing guidelines to regulate special issues to ensure they meet the same standards as regular publications.
• Enhancing transparency in publisher reporting on metrics like rejection rates and turnaround times.
• Encouraging funders to move away from purely quantitative assessments of researcher productivity, perhaps adopting narrative CVs focusing on the quality of contributions.

The insights from this paper provide a structured foundation for ongoing discourse and policy development aimed at maintaining the integrity and sustainability of scientific publishing amidst increasing pressures.