Why do the rules and conventions of academic publishingkeep changing, and how can researchers stay current?

Publishers:• Certainty about quality• Clear value of journals

Editors:• Clear precedence ofideas• Low or no plagiarism• Minimal need for•

Authors:• Rapid acceptance andWhat dosubmission•• Simplicity of process

in academic
publishing?

Facilitators:••••• Clear precedence of its

High predictability ofoutcome•
Consistent andpredictable quality

One of the roles we have at ThinkSCIENCE is to help researchers understand the intricacies of academic publishing.
To do this, we keep ourselves up-to-date on the rules and conventions of publishing and on the latest industry initiatives. This allows us to help researchers follow the rules and take advantage of some of the newest initiatives, making
writing and publication as smooth and trouble-free as possible.
•
By rules, we mean, for example, adhering to the latest ethical standards in research and publication (e.g.,
avoiding plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, and duplicated publication; resolving authorship issues; describing potential conflicts of interest).
•By conventions, we mean using writing conventions and expressions appropriate to your specific subject area,and writing up your research within a standard framework/structure.
•And by industry initiatives, we are referring, for example, to using the most appropriate writing tools available (Word, LaTeX, EndNote, XML, Overleaf, etc.), choosing the best publishing route for you at a given time (pre- or
post-publication peer review, subscription or open access publication, etc.), and understanding how your role in theacademic community can be characterized (CRediT, C-score, Peer Review Citations, etc.).
We’re sometimes asked:

1
You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.

“Why do the rules, conventions, and methods/models of academic
publishing keep changing?
And how can researchers manage to stay current?”
Both are interesting and important questions, particularly because the penalties for not adhering to certain rules andconventions can range from minor (e.g., delayed entry to peer review because you didn’t provide all the ethics statements needed at submission) to dire (e.g., being sanctioned from publishing with a journal for misconduct or being
suspended from receiving government funding for a stated period).
In this article, we’ll address both of these questions. We’ll look briefly at why changes to rules and conventions keep
happening (and who motivates the changes), and then how you can keep up to date on the latest changes and initiatives.

Question 1: Why do the rules, conventions, and methods/models of academic publishingkeep changing?
The rules, standards, and conventions we follow when publishing our research are worked out through discussions(both formal and informal) among five main groups: authors, institutions, publishers, journal editors, and facilitators.
Let’s look at the interests of each group and how they affect the ultimate set of rules decided.
The perspective taken here is necessarily broad. We know that the reasons for researchers to write up (or not) particular results are varied and nuanced, as are the motives for members of each of the groups described. By examining
groups in aggregate, though, a clearer picture of broad trends becomes evident.

Authors

Researchers write academic articles for several reasons, but mostly not for direct
financial gains.

Authors:• Rapid acceptance andsubmission•• Simplicity of process

Instead, good papers contribute to the advancement and wellbeing of society, raise
the profile of the authors, and open additional opportunities in the form of grants,consultancies, tenure, and other career improvements (which can, of course, havefinancial benefits).
It is important to researchers that their manuscripts be (a) relatively easy to prepare and submit, (b) reviewed as quickly as possible, (c) published as quickly as
possible, and (d) distributed to the right readership.

An example of how authors’ needs drive changes to the rules andconventions

To speed up manuscript review and reduce the time to publication as authors want,many journals ask authors to prepare their manuscripts in a highly structured format, exactly as laid out in lengthy
guidelines for authors. By following a clear format, authors can be sure they provide all the required information in therequired format right from the outset.
In the health sciences especially, authors often must follow clear reporting guidelines for different study designs (seethe EQUATOR Network for more than 280 reporting checklists) and attest that research ethics have been followed.
See for example, the comprehensive submission guidelines for PLOS Medicine. Many journals state in the guidelinesthat delays may occur in the submission process if the submission guidelines are not fully met and some say they will
return the manuscript before peer review for reworking if the guidelines are not followed.
Even aside from ethics statements, authors in various disciplines must follow strict rules in order to publish (e.g.,mandatory disclosure of data for research funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, a new policy that took effect inOctober 2015).

2You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors may perceive changes to the rules for manuscript preparation as taking up more of their time, but thesemoves are designed to ensure the quality of research published as well as speed up time to publication.

Institutions
Institutions, including universities, hospitals, and research-focused companies,
frequently see scholarly publication by their members as a way to increase theinstitution’s standing in the research community.

••• Clear precedence of its

For many universities, this is the primary outward-facing function of faculty: topublish research that improves the institution’s image and standing. This helps toattract well-qualified students and faculty, to secure government funding, to encourage alumni to donate, and broadly to grow the strength and health of the university.
For other institutions, and particularly among research-focused for-profit companies, publication by members is not central to the goals of the institution but canhelp in recruitment and retention of key research staff, in securing intellectual property agreements, and in participating in standards-setting within industry.

Because a key benefit that institutions receive from researcher publications isprestige, institutions have a vested interest in supporting authors to publish heavily, along with a balancing interestin ensuring that the publications are high quality. These high-quality publications should reflect high-quality research,which can have significant value to the institution (e.g., the University of California has made more than 500 million
dollars from patent rights).

An example of institutionally driven change: arXiv
To improve the quality of both research and the publications flowing from that research, some institutions spend significant resources promoting open and transparent research.
For example, Cornell University is the primary supporter of arXiv, a pre-print service used by many mathematicians
and physicists to encourage scientific discussion, gain broader readership, and ensure that research precedence isclear. To some extent, arXiv has facilitated an already existing culture of open sharing within these disciplines; to someextent, it has spread that culture, as seen through increasing usage by disciplines without such traditions of openness
before publication.
The copyright agreement used by arXiv has forced many journals to alter their copyright agreements to not countpre-publication on arXiv as duplicate publication, lest they be unable to publish many important and seminal works.
However, because submission to arXiv entails irrevocably granting a non-exclusive copyright to arXiv, some journals
still do not allow submissions of manuscripts posted on arXiv (arXiv cautions authors about this).

Journal Editors

Editors:• Clear precedence ofideas• Low or no plagiarism• Minimal need for

Journal editors are usually, first and foremost, academics who want their journals tobe known for publishing accurate, relevant, and novel research papers.
Because of these goals and the structure of academia (particularly the dominantsystem of promotion and tenure via publication), journal editors are concerned
mainly with finding novel and important papers, cultivating positive relations withauthors and reviewers, and avoiding anything (such as retractions) that detracts
from their journal’s reputation and clouds the scientific record.

Examples of how journal editors drive changes to rules andconventions

At most publishers, journal editors have broad control over the guidelines forauthors used by the journal, although these guidelines usually function within anexisting template. For example, all IEEE journals use the IEEE style guide, but theaims and scope of each journal are set by the journal’s editor. Similarly, many English-language social science journals will have their own specific guidelines but broadly follow the APA Manual of Style and require that any research

3You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.

involving humans have been performed in accordance with international standards. Therefore, journal editors candecide some of the rules and conventions (e.g., reporting guidelines, ethical statements) they want their authors tofollow. When an increasing number of journals see the benefits of certain changes and adopt them, these changes are
more likely to become a part of the template for future guidelines.
Journal editors are also active in discussions of broader issues in academic publishing, such as how to strengthen
publication ethics and handle ethical concerns, improve current manuscript submission and handling systems, andgive authors and reviewers suitable credit for their work. Their input on these issues will help to shape the broader
rules and conventions in the publishing industry.

Publishers

Although management of copyediting accepted articles and distribution of journals
are two of the most visible things undertaken by publishers, there are many, manyothers. In fact, 96 activities are reported in the latest list.

Publishers:• Certainty about quality• Clear value of journals•

Publishers value consistency and predictability in their business because thisallows them to allot resources to production departments, printers, and so on.
Because of this, publishers work closely with journal editors to ensure that thejournals are published on a regular schedule, are of a high enough quality to attract
readers and subscribers, and reflect well on the authors, editorial staff, and reviewers who produce the content.

One recent trend is for publishers to make accepted articles immediately available
in electronic form even before they have been assigned to upcoming issues of print
or online journals (i.e., “published online ahead of print” or “advance online publication”). This rapid publication, which can happen before or after copyediting or
DOI allocation depending on the journal, benefits authors and readers without affecting the value of the article to thejournal and publishers. (See the list at the end of this article for some innovative publishing platforms.)

An example of publisher-led change: ORCIDThe ORCID system allows researchers to obtain a globally unique identification number for use in submitting to journals. This helps to distinguish between researchers with similar or identical names, ensuring that your work is attributed to you, rather than to someone else who shares your name (and vice versa). Some journals require authors tohave registered for an ORCID before allowing them to submit.
The original system was based on the ResearchID system used by the publisher Thomson Reuters, which is still
one of the main supporters of the ORCID system.

Facilitators

Facilitators:••

High predictability ofoutcome•
Consistent andpredictable quality

This group encompasses government agencies, companies, societies, and otherinterested parties who play a role in the scholarly publication ecosystem. Because
this group is so varied, the interests of the members are also varied. For example,
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), which provides funding fora large amount of basic and applied science research in Japan, has the stated aimof “contributing to the advancement of science in all fields of the natural and social
sciences and the humanities.” This is quite a different purpose than that of COPE,
the Committee on Publication Ethics, whose aim is to “[provide] advice to editors
and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle
cases of research and publication misconduct.”
A point of common agreement for facilitators is that the rules of academic publishing should be clear. Whether it is by systematizing the rules (as COPE does), by
enforcing the rules and rewarding those who follow them (as the JSPS does inJapan, with agencies in other countries filling a similar role), or by disseminating
the rules (as ThinkSCIENCE does), facilitators act in concert to make the publication process clear, consistent, and predictable.

4You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.

In some fields, such as medicine, facilitators also act to ensure that human and animal research subjects are treatedethically. For example, the World Medical Association is responsible for the Declaration of Helsinki, which governs
medical research involving human subjects.
As funding bodies, some facilitators require that authors who receive research money from them publish their researchoutcomes under certain conditions. The Wellcome Trust and the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program are
two examples. They require all the research they fund to be published open access. Therefore, publishers that wantto publish these papers must be able to offer open access publishing.
Companies in the scholarly publication ecosystem often fill multiple roles. For example, ThinkSCIENCE is an Associate Corporate member of COPE, provides education services to institutions, and benefits indirectly when researchers receive funding from JSPS and other sources. Part of our remit as a company that smooths the publication ofresearch is to ensure that we understand the latest rules. Toward this, we actively educate authors about the rules via
workshops, Q&A Pros (our online question and answer system), feedback on individual research articles, and otheractivities.

An example of facilitator-led change: Overleaf
Overleaf is a platform that allows online, collaborative writing of documents in LaTeX. We’ve been using this system
when we teach LaTeX for years (back when it was called WriteLaTeX), and so we’ve been able to see it as it has undergone significant changes.
Now, Overleaf does more than just allow authors to write LaTeX. For example, it allows direct submission to somepublishers and can be used in some peer review.
Overleaf is one example of a type of newly emerging service. These services aim to help authors do more of the ‘markup’ of manuscripts, which allows journals to turn submissions into published articles more quickly and accurately. If
authors prefer not to do any of the markup, these services can still assist copyeditors in marking up the articles later inthe production workflow.

Question 2: How can researchers keep current with the changes made?
With so many initiatives and updates around, we understand that it can be difficult for researchers to know which updates are vital to know—in general and in specific fields—and which are helpful to know. Here, we’ll point you to somegood information sources.

General information about publication ethics: COPE
COPE offers publishers and journals a forum to discuss and work out policies and procedures to improve ethics withinpublishing. At their website, you can find their latest guidance, including “International standards for editors and authors.”
One of COPE’s latest discussion topics concerns data sharing. A number of publishers are considering changing theirdata sharing requirements or have already changed them (e.g., PLOS), directly affecting authors submitting to theirjournals.

Scholarly and professional societies
Many scholarly and professional societies publish guidelines for their members to use. Some sets of guidelines havebeen adopted more widely, including those published by the American Chemical Society (3rd edition), the American
Medical Association (10th edition), the American Psychological Association (6th edition), and the Modern Language
Association (3rd edition).

Health research: EQUATOR, ISMPP, and ICMJE
EQUATOR began as an initiative by the National Health Service of the UK. The EQUATOR website contains an extensive set of guidelines that can be used to guide reporting of many different types of study. Additionally, they compile
recommendations from many other groups, such as COPE, ISMJE (discussed below), and the European Associationof Science Editors.

5You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISMPP, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, a not-for-profit organization, seeks to improvetransparency and standards in the medical publication profession, among other initiatives. ISMPP is bringing aboutchanges to the way we report industry-sponsored medical research, although the recommendations made are helpful
to researchers in all areas of health care.
ICMJE, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, publishes guidelines and resources, including standardized forms for routine tasks, such as reporting conflicts of interest. It also recently published “Recommendations for
the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”, aimed at authors and others
involved in biomedical publishing.

Conclusion
The answer to the question of why the rules in academic publishing change so often is straightforward. At heart, theanswer is this: “Everyone who participates in publishing has an interest in changing and updating the rules.” The specific rules change over time as some things become easier (e.g., checking for plagiarism) and some things becomeless relevant (e.g., requiring that articles be submitted by post).
At ThinkSCIENCE, we’re in the fortunate position of being able to keep abreast of changes and trends in academic
publishing, and we’re very happy to help if you have any questions or concerns.
Below are some developments and initiatives that we find interesting.

Recent developments, services, and initiatives in academic publishing
Note: This is a small sample of what we’re reading about. Some of these things are likely to become more important overtime, and some will be supplanted by new developments.
Overleaf: Simplifies collaboration and writing of LaTeX documents. Some publishers are allowing direct submission
through Overleaf.
Think. Check. Submit.: General guidelines on selecting quality journals.
Rapid Science is developing a “C-score” to rate collaborator contributions for multi-author papers.
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines are intended to “provide a template to enhance transparency in the science that journals publish.”Open Science Framework provides a framework for collaborative research (the TOP Guidelines are being worked outvia Open Science Framework).
Glass Tree offers “Academic publishing without the exploitation”.
XML for authors is being encouraged by some publishers as a way to expedite publication.
GPP3, the third version of the Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research,
describes how to discuss and present industry-sponsored medical research.
F1000, Faculty of 1000 offers tools to help life scientists discover interesting work, write their own work, and then publishthat work.
The Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI): promotes a number of endeavors to improve the research and publication process. One interesting program is the CRediT program, whichaims to describe contributions beyond simple authorship.

6You may copy and redistribute this text if nothing is added or removed, and if you retain the company name ThinkSCIENCE, Inc.
Copyright 2015 © ThinkSCIENCE, Inc. All rights reserved.