Content uploaded by Maria José Sampaio de Sá
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria José Sampaio de Sá on Nov 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 353
Review
Future of Scholarly Publishing: A Perspective
Sandro Serpa,1,* Carlos Miguel Ferreira,2 Ana Isabel da Silva Santos,3
Xiaoqiao Cheng,4 Alan C.K. Cheung,5 Longjun Zhou,6,7 Maria José Sá,8
Marta Pellegrini,9 Fuzhou Wang10
1. Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences—CICS.UAc/CICS.NOVA.UAc; Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences,
University of the Azores, Portugal
2. Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences – CICS.NOVA; Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism and Hotel Studies, Portugal
3. Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of the Azores; Interdisciplinary Centre for Childhood and Ad-
olescence - NICA - UAc, Portugal
4. Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, Jiangsu China
5. Department of Educational Administration and Policy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
6. Jiangsu Second Normal University, Nanjing 211200, Jiangsu, China
7. Engineering Research Center of Digital Learning Support Technology, Ministry of Education, Changchun 130000, Jilin, China
8. CIPES -Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, 4450-227 Matosinhos, Portugal
9. Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
10. Group of Neuropharmacology and Neurophysiology, Division of Neuroscience, The Bonoi Academy of Science and Education, Chapel Hill,
NC 27510, USA
*: All corresponding should be sent to Dr. Sandro Serpa.
Authors’ Contact: Sandro Serpa, E-mail: sandro.nf.serpa@uac.pt, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4286-4440; Carlos Miguel Ferreira,
E-mail: carlos.ferreira@eshte.pt, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4937-6696; Ana Isabel da Silva Santos, E-mail: ana.is.santos@uac.pt,
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9506-7309; Xiaoqiao Cheng, E-mail: xqcheng2008@vip.163.com; Alan C.K. Cheung, E-mail:
alancheung@cuhk.edu.hk, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9013-1586; Longjun Zhou, E-mail: 94437034@qq.com; Maria José Sá, E-mail:
mjsa@cipes.up.pt, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0991-3669; Marta Pellegrini, E-mail: marta.pellegrini@unifi.it, ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9806-3231; Fuzhou Wang, E-mail: fred.wang@basehq.org, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-6359.
Funding: This work is financed by national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., within the scope of the project
«UIDB / 04647/2020» of CICS.NOVA—Centro Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais da Universidade Nova de Lisboa."
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15354/si.21.re239
The authors declare no competing interest.
The academic publication takes on an increasingly relevant place to shape, on the one hand,
the scholar’s prestige, and on the other, the prestige of the institution to which he or she is at-
tached. In addition, academic publishing is vital for the development of scientific knowledge
and the contribution to the community. This paper analyzes several dimensions that may be
central to academic publishing in the near future. To this end, in methodological terms, a qual-
itative approach was favored, namely through the documentary analysis of scientific writings
that analyze this topic. The results of this analysis reveal that this is a process in constant and
accelerated development, but there will have to be criteria and processes for selecting what is
scientifically relevant from what is called “noise” in scientific publishing. Increasing quality will
have to be a fundamental element in this process.
Keywords: Academic publication; Scholarly publication; Scientific publication, Publication queries
Science Insights, 2021 November 10; Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.353-360.
© 2021 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved.
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribu-
tion-NonCommercial 4.0 License which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher.
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 348
Introduction
CADEMIC publishing has always been present (1),
and it is increasingly taking on a central place, both for
shaping the scholar’s prestige, for the institution to
which he or she is attached, and for the development of scien-
tific knowledge itself (2-5),
“Scholarly publications in any specialized field
are the sources of recent information for progress
and development of society. They lead to create and
transform new knowledge and stimulate innovation.
In the current academic scenario, promotions, ca-
reer development and recruitment of the individuals
are affected by their publications and citations. Sim-
ilarly, the scholarly publications raise the reputation
and economic status of the institutions” (6, p.1).
Academic publishing is an area very much based on “four
basic principles or roles of scientific publishing, i.e. scientific
priority (registration), peer review (certification), archiving
(preservation) and dissemination, have become the foundations
for nearly all scientific journals today” (7, p.1), being in pro-
found change (8-12) and that affects researchers, editors, pub-
lishers, funders, policymakers, academics, and representatives of
universities, industry, media, and the general public like stake-
holders (13, 14), in a society increasingly shaped by the digital
(1, 15). As Sá et al. (16) mentioned, this also shapes new ethical
and quality issues of credible publications in digital open access
(17), fostered, also, by the COVID-19 pandemic both in form
(18) and in the speed of the production cycle (12) (Table 1).
In this paper, the authors, aware of the risks involved in any
prospective analysis as a reflection to clarify present action in
the light of possible and desired futures (19, 20), seek to analyze
several trends involved in what they consider to be successful
future scholarly publishing. Thus, the following topics related to
scholarly publishing will be analyzed and discussed: Books,
Preprint, Review, Open Access, Megajournals, Publisher, Publi-
cation type, Type of papers, Digital publishing, DOI, Type of
pdf., Reviewers, Funding, Social media, Language, Open data,
Authorship, Ethics, and Publication format.
Methods
In this study, a qualitative methodological approach was pre-
ferred. The aim is to understand the multiplicity of facets that
characterize the challenges posed by the trends in the configura-
tion of future academic publishing. A search was made in inter-
national databases, namely B-ON and SCILIT, between May 10
and 14, 2021. Documentary analysis was the favored technique
in this research, developed from different types of documentary
sources. The authors used the terms “academic publication”,
“scholar publication” and “scientific publication”, favoring in
the subsequent thematic content analysis the following catego-
ries: Submission process; Strategies against plagiarism; Preprint;
Review; Open Access; Social, political and economic impact
besides scientific; Mega-journals; International collaboration;
Type of publication; Digital publication; Social media; Lan-
guage; Open data; and Interdisciplinarity.
Trends in Academic Publishing
Table 2 presents the trends analyzed by the authors for scientific
publication and which will be justified in the subsections that
follow.
Submission Process
The process of submitting a manuscript tends to be simpler to-
day than in past periods, with the dominance of being possible
any free format at the time of initial submission, without, as is
general today, the need to use a specific template for each jour-
nal (21). The authors draw attention to the importance of jour-
nals going beyond the formal aspects of articles, even stating:
“Imagine if a paper describing an important discovery in the
midst of the COVID-19 pandemic were to be delayed by a few
days or weeks, simply because the abstract was misplaced and
sent back to the author (despite the abstract being
copy-and-pasted directly into a free-response field in the sub-
mission portal)” (21, p. 2).
Combat Plagiarism
Digital publishing allows greater control of plagiarism situations,
which occurs when someone gets hold of the work, ideas and
positions of others without being authorized to do so or without
properly referencing that work. Among these, we highlight the
following:
Direct plagiarism: occurs when a text or part of it is copied
verbatim, without any reference to the source.
Mosaic form: this is about taking upon oneself the ideas or
positions of others, assuming them as if they were of one’s
own authorship.
Self-plagiarism: occurs when an author or authors use
their own work, previously published as if it were new.
Accidental plagiarism: occurs when an author or authors
use paraphrases of other authors’ texts without being
aware of it (5).
Numerous authors regarded this type of plagiarism as a
normal and common one because they thought they just used the
same methods and theories in their new studies, so it would have
been all right without any changes in the descriptive words.
However, the situation is not like that. Many manuscripts were
rejected, labeled “plagiarism”, or retracted due to this type of
copied work.
Preprint
The preprint consists of a document that is made available
online to the public on a specific server for that purpose, which
has not yet been published in any scientific journal and, as such,
has not gone through the peer-review process (22, 23). Despite
the absence of this content validation by peers and/or journal
editors, there is always a process of checking for plagiarism and
offensive/dangerous content. Thus, the preprint ends up being
equivalent to a working paper or work in progress, having all the
characteristics of a scientific article, but it has not been verified,
reviewed and evaluated by peers (10). This modality of publica-
tion of scientific results will predictably take on an increasing
centrality in scientific publishing, namely as a rapid way of dis-
seminating science (12). According to Qaiser (22),
“The only way to make preprints a great place
for accelerated publishing and minimize associated
risk of sharing non-reviewed findings is that the au-
A
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 355
Table 1. The Impact of COVID-19 on Scholarly Publishing.
COVID-19 Accelerated Trends
Relevance of Science in Every Day Life
Open Science
Data Sharing/Data Interoperability
Rapid, Open Access to Research Findings
Independent Trends
Novel Research Metrics (Altmetrics)
Artificial Intelligence in Publishing
Note: From Miller & Tsai. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physic 2020; 108(2):491-495.
Table 2. Some Trends Predicted for Scientific Publishing.
Trend
Submission Process
Combat Plagiarism
Preprint
Review
Open Access
Social, Politic and Economic Impact
Mega-Journals
International Collaboration
Type of Publication
Digital Publishing
Social Media
Language
Open Data
Interdisciplinarity
Source: Prepared by the Authors.
thors, readers, and most importantly media reporters
act in a vigilant manner by following the sharing
responsibility and guidelines adhering to the highest
ethical standards” (p. 1).
Another issue that needs to be pointed out is that most tra-
ditionally publishing journals are not the accepting preprint
format as their manuscript source. Even the original purpose of
preprint is to accelerate publication, but it sometimes delays the
processing due to copyright-related issues.
Review
Review is the usual peer-review in the control of scientific pub-
lication (12, 22, 24-27), with an increase in open review being
expected (16). Ferreira and Serpa (24) argued that peer-reviews,
in most cases still closed to the public domain and part of the
internal process of publishers, should be made public, as well as
their authors, in order to contribute to the “[...] accountability
and subsequent legitimation of the scientific quality of what is
published by allowing greater control over what is publishable
and published, in a control that also takes place ‘a posteriori’ of
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 356
the publication” (p. 11).
In fact, the peer-review process in different modalities (24)
has been tending to become more transparent, and the measures
that follow are increasingly used by publishers should be high-
lighted.
Open Access
Open access (OA) publishing despite its variability is (14), in
the authors’ opinion, an inevitability, despite the disparities in
acceptance depending on the scientific area in question (2, 16,
18, 28-31). Sá and Serpa offered as an example of this orienta-
tion toward open access publishing “[...] the recent phenomenon
of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organiza-
tions” (2, p. 82). The authors add that: “The academic/scientific
publication in OA is already a current practice, and the tendency
is that it will continue to be adopted worldwide by academics
and researchers to disseminate the results of their work to the
scientific community and the public at large” (2, p. 84).
Social, Politic and Economic Impact
The scientific impact measured through, for example,
bibliometric factors, such as the number of citations of an article
or an author, among others (32), tends, increasingly, to be com-
plemented by the evaluation of other dimensions of social,
technological and economic impact (31-33). Bautista-Puig et al.
stated (33) that,
“Citizen Science (CS) aims primarily to create
a new scientific culture able to improve upon the tri-
ple interaction between science, society, and policy
in the dual pursuit of more democratic research and
decision-making informed by sound evidence. It is
both an aim and an enabler of open science (OS), to
which it contributes by involving citizens in research
and encouraging participation in the generation of
new knowledge” (p. 1).
Mega-journals
Mega-journals already have an interesting history (34, 35), and
the Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) are now an unavoida-
ble dimension of the science communication system (36-38),
due to their characteristics, namely their broad scope, high pub-
lishing volume, a peer-review process based on the scientific
soundness of the content, and an open-access model (39, 40).
Their relevance is increasing, even with renowned publishers
favoring an economy of scale (38. 39). As Lăzăroiu (41) points
out,
“Mega-journals thoroughly shift the tendency
in academic publishing which has generated grow-
ing specialism, with outlets focusing on ev-
er-narrower spheres of interest. Mega-journals pro-
vide publishers the capacity for outstanding econo-
mies of scale. Publishers can design time-saving
mechanisms and combined systems for an individual
journal rather than having to handle massive sets of
journal titles, all with distinct standards for inclu-
sion. Mega-journals are instrumental in substantial
system-wide savings” (p. 1047).
To some extent, a mega-journal is responsible for the dis-
tribution of scientific information, rather than the monitoring
function associated with top journals (41), by favoring scientific
soundness peer-review rather than possible novelty (36, 39, 41,
42). This phenomenon of the proliferation of mega-journals is
not viewed in the same way, and in a peaceful manner, by the
scientific community (37).
International Collaboration
Currently, there is - and will continue to be - a growing appreci-
ation of international collaboration (43, 44), namely with the
establishment of international research and development net-
works: “Scientists collaborate internationally when it enhances
their academic prestige, scientific recognition, and access to
research funding, as indicated by the credibility cycle, prestige
maximization, and global science models” (45, p. 1). However,
the collaboration-related knowledge distribution may be associ-
ated with the concerns of intellectual property, and needs serious
consideration.
Type of Publication
Regarding their type, publications will tend to take the form of
replication papers based on experimentation, with the logic that
ascribed to them by Harremoës (46): “An experiment is repro-
ducible if a similar experiment will support the same conclu-
sions. The more variation that is allowed in an experimental
setup that still supports the same conclusion, the more valid is
the conclusion” (p. 2).
Social science journals currently seem to give more rele-
vance to manuscripts submitted for evaluation and publication in
the form of empirical research articles, following the exact sci-
ences’ model and, preferably, with the possibility of replication
of the research. On the contrary, the publication of scientific
studies based on reasoned logical argumentation seems to occu-
py an increasingly less relevant place in this process of publica-
tion and dissemination of science (47).
Digital Publishing
Digital publishing allows for a profound change in scientific
publishing, both in the form of publication (no space limitations,
with the possibility of publishing images, films, ... at low cost),
enabling increased visual communication (48-51). This aspect is
of special relevance, considering the centrality of visual com-
munication in contemporary societies. Additionally, digital pub-
lication enables the manuscript to be published immediately,
without further delay (3, 4, 10, 38). In this regard, Sá et al. (16)
argued that,
“The printed publication becomes less relevant
in comparison with the digital publication, for ex-
ample, through a journal website. […] Specifically
in academic publications (ejournals and ebooks), the
unstoppable movement, in our opinion, of Open Ac-
cess – which makes the manuscripts available for
reading by any user with internet access without the
need for any payment or subscription” (p. 214).
Therefore, reading through a digital device is inevitable and
increasingly gaining ground over reading on paper. The fact that
we live in a growingly technological, digital and virtual world
leads to the conclusion that this type of reading will be increas-
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 357
ingly used in higher education, but with rapid progression to the
other levels of education. This type of instrument has enormous
potential benefits, but it becomes necessary to ensure that it is
correctly used by teachers and students (31, 52).
Social Media
Social media coverage is increasingly used to spread the mes-
sage of scientific publications (29, 53). However, for the suc-
cessful use of digital social media for the publication of scien-
tific information, it is important that societies bet on and invest
in the digital literacy of their citizens, as it should not be taken
for granted simply because we live in a context of an increas-
ingly digital society (54).
Indeed, according to Sá et al. (16), social media permeate
our, namely through social networks, which reveals the great
importance for scholars of their digital visibility, in addition to
seeing their work published and cited. In this line, Ferreira and
Serpa (50) suggested that,
“[...] this new dimension, which is being added
to the success and legitimacy of the scholar and
his/her institution, will have probable direct conse-
quences both on the form and on the contents of fu-
ture publications. The willingness of scholars to
produce publications worthy of social visibility may
foster a growing number of publications that are at-
tractive, perhaps less complex and more accessible
to the “uninitiated”, what we call glamorous publi-
cations” (p. 58).
Taking, then, into account this context in constant and rapid
dynamics and change, it becomes necessary to rethink the
measures used to assess the quality of scientific publications.
Their scientific credibility, impact and value should be assessed
using measures of a heterogeneous nature, but this measurement
that also relies, on the impact on social media, for example,
through altmetrics (12), in turn, calls into question the whole
concept of measuring scientific output (55).
Language
English is and will continue to be the lingua franca of science
(7), despite the limitations and difficulties this poses to scientists
for whom English is not their mother tongue (9, 56, 57).
The research that has been developed in the field of aca-
demic literacy reveals, among other things, the unequal distribu-
tion of (geolinguistic) power. In terms of scientific publishing,
power is equivalent to “[...] the ability to participate in a dis-
course and be heard, or to communicate an idea in a voice that
feels like your own. But for most, it means being recognized and
rewarded for what you do” (57, p. 11).
However, several authors emphasize that in addition to in-
justices, one may be losing very relevant scientific information,
which calls for a more inclusive science (58),
“[…]the dominance of English in scientific
communications also brings up the worry of a loss of
diversity in scientific-publishing ecology, as many
institutions and universities are under the pressure of
‘internationalization’ often signified by publishing in
English. Scientific publications in non-English lan-
guages should be protected in order to encourage
research and publications on issues focusing on re-
gional or cultural specificities. It is often ignored
that scientific publications in local languages can
play an important role in scientific communications,
policymaking and science education” (7, p. 1).
Open Data
Open Data correspond to “data that anyone can access, use and
share” (59, p. 2). In the context of Open Science, Open Data
take on a central role in scientific research, since they are one of
its basic components (18). This concern to make research data
public by institutions and researchers materializes what is the
basis of an Open Science characterized by good and reliable
practices (60). Raffaghelli and Manca (59) stated that “The
common factor underlying these new practices [...] is mostly a
social form of knowledge sharing and construction” (p. 1), in
what Wilkinson et al. (61) called FAIR (Findability, Accessibil-
ity, Interoperability, and Reusability). Meanwhile, publicizing
the data would undoubtedly help avoid the publication of fabri-
cated studies without supervision by the public and produce
pressure on the authors not to use fake data.
Thus, the digitized data made available to the scientific
community allows, in the view of Raffaghelli and Manca (59),
an “[...] appropriate communication and sharing, thus implying
new discoveries and more balanced efforts from the community
of researchers” (p. 2).
Interdisciplinarity
Abramo et al. (62) draw attention to the fact that the increasing
complexity of the challenges underlying scientific progress re-
quires that there is an increasingly frequent application of skills
and knowledge from various scientific fields, also requiring the
creation of synergies among disciplines (13). In this context of
high complexity, multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are
central: “[...] collaboration between different fields and identify
the most recurrent ‘combinations of knowledge’ seen in the
resulting publications” (62, p. 14).
Serpa et al. (63) extended the scope of the concept of
interdisciplinarity, defining it as “[...] the promotion and mobili-
zation of synergies of two or more different scientific disciplines”
(p. 45).
Conclusion
One of the greatest potential benefits of the features envisioned
for academic publishing that this paper outlines may be the fact
that “Talent is universal, opportunities are not” (56, p. 6),
“In a globalized world, in which digitalization
is one of the most important innovations during the
last years, everybody should have the same chances
of participation irrespective of race, color, gender,
ethnicity, cultural background, sexual orientation or
financial possibilities” (29, p. 2).
However, while the current landscape of rapidly evolving
scientific publications facilitates the dissemination of research, it
may, on the other hand, allow “[research waste, predation, and
piracy]” (13, p. 1). Thus, the “[...] challenge of distinguishing
information from noise, innovation from dystopian-like disrup-
tion, and opportunity from threat” (p. 1) is posed by those who
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 358
do research and those who disseminate it.
As Bourdieu (64) stated, “the structure of the field, defined
by the unequal distribution of capital, that is, of specific weap-
ons or trump cards, makes itself felt, not by direct interaction,
intervention, or manipulation, on all agents, but by regulating
the possibilities open to them according to whether they are
worse or better situated in the field, that is, in this distribution”
(p. 53).
Faced with this challenge, respect for academic freedom
and its legitimating agent - the academic editor - are fundamen-
tal. In fact, following Serpa et al. (32), “The academic editor has
been, and still is, the gatekeeper of peer-reviewed scientific
publications, by being whom, ultimately, defines whether or not
a manuscript can be published” (p. 13).
On the other hand, the fact that it is easy to access infor-
mation does not guarantee its quality. Thus, in an open science
context, it is important that those who seek information have the
skills and knowledge to select that which is true and relevant, so
that they can prepare an informed and reasoned position (54).
This concern with the reliability of information is related to the
danger that Mendiz and Torres Viera (56) talk about when they
state that “In the battle to conquer everyone’s attention, sensa-
tionalist tabloid-style material seems to have replaced academic
writing. The focus should be on getting the attention of the spe-
cialists through an updated informative model that never loses
its primary educational purpose” (p. 6).
The ethical dimension will be central in controlling this
process of “transition from the “publish or perish” era to that of
“publish and be ethical”, in which a researcher may face the
“publish or be ethical” dilemma” (11). Pašalić and Šupak
Smolčić (65) presented a real situation of creating a fake jour-
nal’s site with the same name as an already established and rep-
utable journal trying to pass itself off as the latter, which put the
image of the original journal in question. Reading this very in-
structive case gives a clear idea of the need but the concomitant
difficulty in dealing with these situations.
Increasing quality has to be a fundamental element in this
whole process (66). A distinction needs to be made between
“practical relevance” and “academic rigor”, as Fraser and
Sheehy (67) pointed out,
“The real-world relevance of research being
published by accounting academics is receiving an
increasing level of criticism (mainly anecdotal) by
many within the profession, which includes senior
and high-profile academics, editors and publishers,
governments and professional accounting bodies,
and accounting regulatory institutions. Many have
argued that the research practice gap is wider in
accounting than other academic disciplines, and the
findings of this study would support this hypothesis”
(p. 30).■
References
1. Mallett JJ. The resilience of scientific publication:
From elite ancient academies to open access. Learn
Pub 2021; 34(1):49-56. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1366
2. Sá MJ, Serpa S. Some issues on the funding of the
scientific publication in open access. Acad J Interdis
Stud 2020; 9(4):77-85. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2020-0063
3. Sá MJ, Serpa S. Ferreira CM, Santos AI. Social me-
dia centrality in identity (re)construction in higher
education. J Educ Soc Res 2020; 10(1):11-22. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0002
4. Sá MJ, Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Science communica-
tion and online social networks: Challenges and op-
portunities. Knowl Manag Int J 2020;19(2):1-22. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7998/cgp/v19i02/1-22
5. Chhetri P, Parajuli S, Kafle S. Plagiarism: A new
challenge for scientific publication. Birat J Health Sci
2017; 2(2):148-149. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/bjhs.v2i2.18509
6. Wahid N, Warraich NF. Tahira M. Factors influencing
scholarly publication productivity: a systematic review.
Infor Discov Deliv 2021; In press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/idd-04-2020-0036
7. Zhou Z. Future scientific publishing: What should be
inherited and changed? Nat Sci Rev 2020; 7(1):1-1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz224
8. Santos AI, Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Writing in science. J
Educ Soc Res 2020; 10(4):128-133. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0072
9. Serpa S. Alienation on social media. Stud Media
Comm 2019; 7(1):17-20. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4286
10. Ferreira C, Serpa S. The importance of preprint in
scientific publication: Perspectives and challenges. J
Soc Sci Res 2018; 4(12):642-647.
https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.412.642.647
11. Paruzel-Czachura M, Baran L, Spendel Z. Publish or
be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific mis-
conduct in research. Res Ethic 2020;
2020:174701612098056. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120980562
12. Miller RC, Tsai CJ. Scholarly publishing in the wake of
COVID-19. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physic 2020;
108(2):491-495. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.048
13. Ioannidis JPA, Berkwits M, Flanagin A, Godlee F,
Bloom T. Ninth international congress on peer review
and scientific publication: Call for research. BMJ
2019; 2019:l5475. DOI:
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 359
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5475
14. The Editors. The future of scholarly publishing:
Paywalls and profits or a new plan? Geoforum 2019;
102:1-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.005
15. Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Society 5.0 and social devel-
opment: Contributions to a discussion. Manag
Organiz Stud 2018; 5(4):26-31. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5430/mos.v5n4p26
16. Sá MJ, Ferreira CM, Santos AI, Serpa S. Publishing
at any cost? The need for the improvement of the
quality of scholarly publications. Int J Higher Educ
2020; 9(3):214-221. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n3p214
17. Weinhardt M. Big data: Some ethical concerns for the
social sciences. Soc Sci 2021; 10(2):36. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020036
18. Shah DT. Open-access publishing in times of crises:
The future of scientific success lies in accessibility for
all. Marshall J Med 2021; 7(1):1. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33470/2379-9536.1324
19. Berger G. Sciences humaines et prévision». La Re-
vue des Deux Mondes 1957; nº 3.
20. Godet M. Prefácio. In Godet M, Durance P, Dias J.
A Prospectiva Estratégica para as Empresas e os
Territórios. Cadernos do LIPSOR, 2008; n.º 20.
Paris: Laboratoire d’Innovation de Prospective
Stratégique et d’Organisation
21. Oh H. A call for a more efficient submission process.
Publications 2020; 8(3):40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030040
22. Qaiser D. COVID-19 pandemic and research publi-
cations; Necessity of maintaining scientific integrity.
Int Annal Sci 2020; 10(1):1-6. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21467/ias.10.1.1-6
23. Rustan E. Use of Preprint in the Publication of the
Scientific Papers. J Physic Conf Ser 2021;
1752(1):012074. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1752/1/012074
24. Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Publicising the identified
peer-reviewer: Legitimacy and quality of the scientific
publication. Int J Interdis Educ Stud 2018;
13(1):11-17. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-011x/cgp/v13i01/11-17
25. Pomponi F, D’Amico B, Rye T. Who is (likely)
peer-reviewing your papers? A partial insight into the
world’s top reviewers. Publications 2019; 7(1):15.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010015
26. Sen-Crowe B, Sutherland M, Shir A, Kinslow K,
Boneva D, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. Variations in sur-
gical peer-reviewed publications among editorial
board members, associate editors and their respec-
tive journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.
Annal Med Surg 2020; 60:140-145. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.042
27. Taylor M. Mapping the publishing challenges for an
open access university press. Publications 2019;
7(4):63. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040063
28. Knöchelmann M. Open science in the humanities, or:
Open humanities? Publications 2019; 7(4):65. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065
29. Jähne J. The future of scientific publication is Open
Access, but needs diversity, equability and equality!
Innov Surg Sci 2021; 6(2):49-51. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2021-2038
30. Van Noorden R. Do you obey public-access man-
dates? Google Scholar is watching. Nature 2021;
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00873-8
31. Borges MM, Casado ES. Sob a lente da Ciência
Aberta: Olhares de Portugal, Espanha e Brasil 2021.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-2022-0
32. Serpa S, José Sá M, Santos AI, Ferreira CM. Chal-
lenges for the academic editor in the scientific publi-
cation. Acad J Interdis Stud 2020; 9(3):12-16. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2020-0037
33. Bautista-Puig N, De Filippo D, Mauleón E,
Sanz-Casado E. Scientific landscape of citizen sci-
ence publications: Dynamics, content and presence
in social media. Publications 2019; 7(1):12. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010012
34. Steel G. A review of megajournals. Winnower (n.d.).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.147669.98042
35. Wakeling S, Willett P, Creaser C, Fry J, Pinfield S,
Spezi V. Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric
profile. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(11):e0165359. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165359
36. Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal,
2006-2017. PeerJ, 2018; 6:e4357. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4357
37. Erfanmanesh M. Quantitative portrait of open access
mega-journals. Malays J Libr Inf Sci 2019;
24(2):115-131. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7
38. Shintaku M, Brito R, Trzesniak P. MegaJournal:
Revisão de conceitos [MegaJournal: Review of con-
cepts]. In Anais do Abec Meeting 2018 [Proceedings
of the Abec Meeting 2018]. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.21452/abecmeeting.2018.157
39. Spezi V, Wakeling S, Pinfield S, Creaser C, Fry J,
Willett P. Open-access mega-journals. The future of
scholarly communication or academic dumping
ground? A review. J Document 2017; 73(2):263-283.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082
40. Shopovski J, Marolov D. Why academics choose to
publish in a mega-journal. J Educ Learn 2017;
6(4):348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p348
41. Lăzăroiu G. Do mega-journals constitute the future of
scholarly communication? Educ Philos Theor 2017;
49(11):1047-1050. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300022
42. Wakeling S, Creaser C, Pinfield S, Fry J, Spezi V,
Willett P, Paramita M. Motivations, understandings,
and experiences of open-access mega-journal au-
thors: Results of a large-scale survey. J Assoc Infor
Sci Technol 2019; 70(7):754-768. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24154
43. Macchi Silva VV, Ribeiro JLD, Alvarez GR, Caregnato
SE. Competence-based management research in the
Web of Science and Scopus databases: Scientific
https://bonoi.org/index.php/si SI | November 10, 2021 | vol. 39 | no. 3 360
production, collaboration, and impact. Publications
2019; 7(4):60. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040060
44. Henly SJ. Coauthors and collaboration in scientific
publication. Nurs Res 2017; 66(4):273-274. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0000000000000232
45. Kwiek M. What Large-scale publication and citation
data tell us about international research collaboration
in Europe: Changing national patterns in global con-
texts. SSRN Electr J 2020; DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3559042
46. Harremoës P. Replication papers. Publications 2019;
7(3):53. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030053
47. Serpa S, Ferreira CM, Santos AI. Personal argu-
mentation in the scholarly publication. J Educ Soc
Res 2020; 10(2):1-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0021
48. Pu Q, Zhu X, Chen D, Zhang R. Analysis and opti-
mization of PDF-to-EPUB in the digital publishing
process. Electr Libr 2018; 36(2):350-368. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-11-2016-0247
49. Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Contemporary challenges for
the academic. Int J Contemp Educ 2018; 2(1):1-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11114/ijce.v2i1.3786
50. Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Online visibility, social net-
works and glamorous scientific publications. Int J Soc
Sci Stud 2018; 6(10):58-66. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v6i10.3652
51. Ferreira CM, Serpa S. Photography in social science
research. J Educ Soc Res 2020; 10(4):62-69. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0065
52. Santos AI, Ferreira CM, Sá MJ, Serpa S. Reading on
paper and scrolling text on a screen in academic
learning. Acad J Interdis Stud 2019; 8(3):135-143.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2019-0012
53. Serpa S, Ferreira CM, Sá MJ, Santos AI. Dissemina-
tion of knowledge in the digital society. In S. Serpa, C.
M. Ferreira, M. J. Sá, A. I: & Santos, Digital Society
and Social Dynamics 2020; pp.2-pp.16. United
Kingdom, Birmingham: Servicer for Science and Ed-
ucation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/eb.17.2020
54. Santos AI, Serpa S. The importance of promoting
digital literacy in higher education. Int J Soc Sci Stud
2017; 5(6):90-93. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v5i6.2330
55. Balaji B, Dhanamjaya M. Preprints in scholarly
communication: Re-Imagining metrics and infra-
structures. Publications 2019; 7(1):6. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010006
56. Mendiz OA, Torres Viera JM. The challenge of inte-
grating Ibero-America through research and scientific
publications. REC Interv Cardiol (Eng Ed) 2020; DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24875/RECICE.M19000058
57. Nygaard L. The institutional context of “linguistic in-
justice”: Norwegian social scientists and situated
multilingualism. Publications 2019; 7(1):10. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010010
58. Shokraneh F, Russell-Rose T. Lessons from
COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first
living search strategy and out of date scientific pub-
lishing and indexing industry. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;
123:171-173. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.014
59. Raffaghelli J, Manca S. Is there a social life in open
data? The case of open data practices in educational
technology research. Publications 2019; 7(1):9. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010009
60. Thelwall M. Data in brief: Can a mega-journal for data
be useful? Scientometrics 2020; 124(1):697-709. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03437-1
61. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Apple-
ton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten JW, da
Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J, Brookes
AJ, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S,
Evelo CT, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AJ,
Groth P, Goble C, Grethe JS, Heringa J, 't Hoen PA,
Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher SJ, Martone
ME, Mons A, Packer AL, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P,
Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone SA, Schultes E,
Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz MA, Thomp-
son M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J,
Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao
J, Mons B. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific
data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;
3:160018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Erratum in: Sci Data 2019; 6(1):6.
62. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Identifying
interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classifica-
tion of coauthors of scientific publications. J Am Soc
Infor Sci Technol 2012; 63(11):2206-2222. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22647
63. Serpa S, Ferreira CM, Santos AI. Fostering
interdisciplinarity: Implications for social sciences. Int
J Soc Sci Stud 2017; 5(12):44-49. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v5i12.2775
64. Bourdieu P. Para uma sociologia da ciência [Towards
a sociology of science]. Lisboa: Edições 70. 2004.
65. Pašalić D, Šupak Smolčić V. Copyright violation of
predators in scientific publishing - Biochemia
Medica’s harmful experience and proposed solution.
Biochem Med 2020; 30(2):196-201. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2020.020201
66. Wang J, Halffman W, Zwart H. The Chinese scientific
publication system: Specific features, specific chal-
lenges. Learn Pub 2020; DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1326
67. Fraser K, Sheehy B. Abundant publications but mi-
nuscule impact: The irrelevance of academic ac-
counting research on practice and the profession.
Publications 2020; 8(4):46. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8040046
Received: June 10, 2021 | Revised: October 24, 2021 | Accepted: October 27, 2021
