This blog is an excerpt from a post published on The Source, which can be read here.

Inclusive publishing is about recognising the contribution of different kinds of research outcomes and products to advancing science, generating discovery, and creating meaningful impact in the world. This includes open science outputs and valuing the sharing of data, code, and experimental design papers. It also includes recognition of smaller, more foundational studies and diverse authors, and acknowledgement of the merits of regional novelty – scientific advances that may have a bigger impact in specific regions and within distinct communities.   

From inclusive publishing catalysing discovery and back to selectivity 

The true benefit of a research community practicing inclusive publishing was seen during the global pandemic, when most journals published research that ordinarily may not have been considered. During Covid19, researchers were not arguing of the merits of publishing null result papers (in which research outcomes do not confirm the hypothesis) – these papers were recognised as research that would ultimately save time and money, and limit redundancy in research practice. Researchers valued data and experimental design papers for facilitating reproducibility, and foundational studies formed the building blocks to milestone advances. Impact was defined as research that advanced the pace of discovery, and we went from a fatal global disease to effective drugs and vaccines in 18 months.  

Yet today, just a few years later, similar article types are deemed low quality as their value is not captured by citation behaviour. Indeed, it has been reported that around 50% of funded research (for instance, of health-related studies) remains unvalidated and unpublished, with most journals rejecting 80%-90% of submissions. Obviously, a component of this research will be technically flawed and should not be published, but most research is initially rejected on the grounds that it is not considered to be of sufficient significance to the journal editors.  

These rejected submissions tend to include papers which present more foundational advances and support open research practices. These mass rejections cause a substantial financial loss: A study prepared for the European Commission estimated already in 2018 that up to €26 billion in Europe alone is wasted because work has been duplicated due to lack of awareness, or access to, existing research or null results.  

Selective journals, without any doubt, continue to play a vital role in the scientific landscape. These low-volume, high-impact journals offer authors enhanced visibility, wider accessibility, and prestige for groundbreaking research. But the publishing landscape has now converged too far towards selective publishing, and we are no longer serving the scientific community to effectively learn from each other and advance the pace of discovery. 

Inclusive journals extend authors and the research community the space to publish technically sound research that has been rigorously peer-reviewed and validated. They provide a home to research that supports the scientific community in reproducing research and aids them in building faster on the road to discovery.

A home for various research outputs: Inclusive journals supporting reproducibility and discovery 

Not all research can be groundbreaking and significant; this is the niche that inclusive journals fill. They extend authors and the research community the space to publish technically sound research that has been rigorously peer-reviewed and validated. Inclusive journals offer a publication outlet for foundational and fundamental advances, null and positive results, as well as descriptive papers on protocols and data sets, which facilitate the sharing of data and support reproducibility. These journals provide a home to research that supports the scientific community in reproducing research and aids them in building faster on the road to discovery. 

BMC Series, Scientific Reports, and PLOS are examples of established inclusive journals. At Springer Nature we have also recently launched the Discover journals and Cureus journals to support author demand and explore more equitable solutions to open access publishing. These inclusive journals all share the editorial criteria of not considering the significance of the research. They consider a paper to be worthy of publishing if it asks a scientifically valid research question, makes an original contribution to the field, and is found to be technically sound and carried out to community accepted standards.

Editors of inclusive journals are not trying to raise the impact of the research or extend the research in multiple directions, which is why it is faster to be published. Many inclusive journals have also capitalised on the use of collections and special issues to help authors navigate a crowded market, making it easier for authors to gauge editorial interest and to give their research more visibility in an online world.  

The number of articles being published in inclusive journals is evidence of the need and author demand for these publication outlets. Indeed, inclusive journals tend to be larger because there are so few of them. Their larger sizes also lead to lower impact factors, but any one paper could be garnering tens to hundreds of citations – its impact is masked by the larger number of papers published in these types of journals.  

It is important to note that over a third of the research published in Springer Nature’s inclusive portfolio contributes directly to addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals. That’s a research assessment metric with societal impact and should offer as much value to the research community as citation counting. 

End of excerpt. Read the full blog post here. 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the forefront of strategic priorities at Springer Nature. We are committed to serving a diverse and global research community.
Find out more about inclusive publishing practices at Springer Nature.