Scholarly publication in international journals depends on qualified, unbiased and available referees: (1) qualified in their ability to assume each role inherent to being a peer reviewer and in willingly and competently accepting the responsibilities that coincide with these roles; (2) unbiased in focusing on the submitted research content irrespective of their own research programs in judging the submission’s merit; and (3) available to devote time to read and understand the paper, check the accuracy and relevance of references, and write a comprehensive review commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the ability of the research to be replicated, and the contribution of the work to the discipline. This study investigates the range of reviewer’s roles and responsibilities in relation to author’s own assessment as a frequent reviewer for fourteen journals representing five publishing houses—and as an active researcher—in comparison with a 2019 comprehensive study of the views of 224 authors on peer review. Based on this investigation, advice will be provided to potential reviewers regarding what is expected of them in undertaking their work. Recommendations will be offered for peer review to mitigate weaknesses in the process and increase the pool of qualified peer reviewers.

Societal changes have had effects on deaths from all causes in Russia. Up until now, deaths from all causes have been well researched, although several inconsistencies persist on the contributions of researchers. This study assessed research output, trends and topics that shaped deaths from all causes studies in Russia. Using bibliometric and topic modelling approaches, deaths from all causes in Russia published from 1914 to date was analysed using data on publications, citations, journals, keywords co-occurrence, year of publication, institutional affiliations, and country of origin from Scopus. Overall results indicate a steady growth of publications in Russia was documented after 1985. The h-index of some top 10 authors did not surpass single digits. A network visualisation map showed that ‘Russia’, ‘male’, ‘mortality’ and ‘human’ were the most commonly encountered vital terms. Of the ten most prolific authors, McKee M, Shkolnikov VM, Bobak M, Samorodskaya IV and Andreev E were the first five. Although the top 10 journals researching on death causes in Russia were Russian, these journals were not included in the most cited journals. The most prolific institutions studying deaths in Russia included; Tehran University of Medical Sciences, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University College London, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and National Research University-Higher School of Economics. Findings suggest that deaths from all causes research attention in Russia increased in recent years, but the number of publications and research related engagements (e.g., networking and/ collaboration) does not match-up to other countries (e.g., UK, US, Germany). This research lag calls for more collaborative research between public health disciplines and networking among researchers (i.e., both national and international).

The inclusion of scientific journals in prestigious indexers is often associated with higher citation rates; journals included in such indexers are significantly more acknowledged than those that are not included in them. This phenomenon refers to the Matthew effect on journal citations, according to which, journals in exclusive rankings tend to be increasingly cited. This paper shows the opposite: that the inclusion of journals in local indexers ruled by inclusive logic reduces the Matthew effect on journal citations, since it enables them to be equally exposed. Thus, we based our arguments on the comparison of 68 Brazilian journals before and after they were indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (Spell), which ranks journals in the Brazilian management field based on local citations. Citation impact indicators and iGini (a new individual inequality analysis measure) were used to show that the inclusion of journals in Spell has increased their impact factor and decreased their citation inequality rates. In addition, the results indicated that the effect between ranking and inequality has declined after journals were included in Spell; this outcome indicates that the database has reduced the Matthew effect on journal citations.

In the digital era in which over 4 billion people regularly access the internet, the conventional process of publishing scientific articles in academic journals following peer review is undergoing profound changes. Following physics and mathematics scholars who started to publish their work on the freely accessible arXiv server in the early 1990s, researchers of all disciplines increasingly publish scientific articles in the form of freely accessible and fully citeable preprints before or in parallel to conventional submission to academic journals for peer review. The full transition to open science, I argue in this study, requires to expand the education of students and young researchers to include scholarly communication in the digital era.

The JCR 2022, for the first time, included the ESCI journals, increasing the number of publication titles by approximately 60%. In this paper, the subcategory Mining and Mineral Processing (as part of the Engineering and Geosciences category), where 12 of the ESCI journals were merged with the 20 SCIEx ones, is presented and analysed. Only three of the ESCI journals, that JCR 2022 included in the database, would be ranked in the Q1/Q2. The inclusion of the entire ESCI added new content for readers and authors relying on the JCR sources, and will help the journals in the database to attract more papers and citations in the future. Consequently, part of the journals (probably more than 25% marked in this analysis) will have a bigger chance to reach the Q1/Q2 ranking in the forthcoming years. This paper gives the authors, researchers, and publishers in the Mining and Mineral Processing field practical insights into the potential benefits and challenges associated with the changing landscape of indexed journals, as well as the in-depth, systematic analyses for potential future authors to have the opportunity to select the most suitable journal for submitting their papers.

The outcomes of the present scientometric analysis of research in catalysis provide chemistry and catalysis scholars with a closer bibliometric knowledge of an old and central field of chemical research which is being reshaped by fundamental and technological advances spanning from single-atom heterogeneous catalysis to flow chemistry. Improving and widening research and education in catalysis is a strategic need for national economies. Four research policy guidelines aimed at fostering progress in catalysis research and education conclude the study.

Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S compliant. We suspected this was not so, and set out to explore this using DOAJ's journal metadata. We conclude that an overwhelmingly large majority of open access journals are not Plan S compliant, and that it is small HSS publishers not charging APCs that are least compliant and will face major challenges with becoming compliant. Plan S need to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC-based journals.

This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work. There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.

Many academics are critical of the current publishing system, but it is difficult to create a better alternative. This review relates to the Sciences and Social Sciences, and discusses the primary purpose of academic journals as providing a seal of approval for perceived quality, impact, significance, and importance. The key issues considered include the role of anonymous refereeing, continuous rather than discrete frequency of publications, avoidance of time wasting, and seeking adventure. Here we give recommendations about the organization of journal articles, the roles of associate editors and referees, measuring the time frame for refereeing submitted articles in days and weeks rather than months and years, encouraging open access internet publishing, emphasizing the continuity of publishing online, academic publishing as a continuous dynamic process, and how to improve research after publication. Citations and functions thereof, such as the journal impact factor and h-index, are the benchmark for evaluating the importance and impact of academic journals and published articles. Even in the very top journals, a high proportion of published articles are never cited, not even by the authors themselves. Top journal publications do not guarantee that published articles will make significant contributions, or that they will ever be highly cited. The COVID-19 world should encourage academics worldwide not only to rethink academic teaching, but also to re-evaluate key issues associated with academic journal publishing in the future.