LSHTM Press News Feed

The Community Eye Health Journal is the latest journal to be published on the LSHTM Press.

Hugh Bassett, Communications Officer, International Centre for Eye Health

Around the world, one in eight people have some form of sight loss for which they haven’t received any treatment. That’s over a billion people who are less able to work, care for their family and enjoy life due to not having access to eye care that others take for granted. In fact, over 90% of people with vision impairment simply need cataract surgery or a pair of glasses, both existing and highly cost-effective treatments.

The vast majority of people with this unaddressed sight loss live in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where a lack of resources is often hampered by a lack of knowledge and relevant, up-to-date eye care information among eye care workers.

The Community Eye Health Journal  (CEHJ) meets this need for practical, relevant guidance on the clinical, practical, and public health aspects of eye health. It is a free, peer-reviewed journal that is available online, in print, and via a smartphone app.

The CEHJ is unique in that it is the only journal that focuses on practical eye care delivery, not just research. We cater to the whole eye health team and reach some of the hardest-to-reach health care workers in the world. 

Readers include policy makers, managers, ophthalmic nurses and allied eye health personnel, ophthalmologists, optometrists, and general medical personnel working in eye care.

Each CEHJ print copy is read by an average of 10 other people, with some individual copies reaching up to 50
We have over 11,000 email subscribers and more than 350,000 people visit our website each year
Our articles have over 2 million views on PubMed annually

The CEHJ has been published since 1988 by the International Centre for Eye Health. Our move to LSHTM Press made sense for us as a journal – we are now part of an exciting new open access platform at a world-renowned university for public health. We’re looking forward to being part of an initiative to enable the widest possible dissemination of accessible and inclusive information.

Read the latest issue of the CEHJ, Microbial keratitis: a practical guide

Posted 12th February 2025

Publishing your research: how to select a journal

LSHTM PRESS Academic Publishing Explainer Series

Finding the right journal for your research can be a daunting task – there are hundreds to choose from and many different options to consider. At LSHTM Press we believe that breaking down barriers to both publishing and reading scientific research is fundamental, and the guidance below is written with this at its heart.

1. Make a list of potential journals

Here are some tips to help you create a list of journals to target:

Talk to colleagues, co-authors, supervisors and networks about journals they recommend for certain topics (and any to avoid!).
Consider the journals you cite most often in your work.
Check relevant databases, such as PubMed. Looking up relevant MeSH terms can tell you in which journals similar research has been published previously.
If you are keen to publish open access, The Directory of Open Access Journals is a good source of information. You can limit your search to journals that don’t charge a fee if you wish.
EndNote Match can analyse your title, abstract and reference list, and suggest some target journals ranked by relevance.
Those publishing interdisciplinary research may find it harder to select a journal, and ultimately you may need to compromise and settle on a journal that covers one topic or another. If that happens, it can be helpful to try to base your decision on the direction you plan to take your work in future, as well as any potential grant applications and job opportunities.
Bear in mind that outputs such as protocol papers, data resource papers, or cohort profiles are often published in specific journals.

2. Compare and evaluate

Here are some factors you might consider:

Most journals give information on their website regarding subject coverage, plus their aims and scope. Reading some of the recently published articles may help you decide whether your article would be a good fit.
Many will also give you an idea of the rate of acceptance. This can be a good indicator of how likely your article is to be accepted for publication and how long you are likely to have to wait for an outcome.
Journal metrics - Journal metrics are not reliable as a way to assess the quality of work published in a particular journal, however they can be used as a way compare journals. Always take multiple metrics into account.
Open access – bear in mind if the journal publishes articles open access and if so, whether they charge a fee for publication (see below).

3. Consider opportunities for open access publishing and constraints related to funding

Ensuring your work is open access increases the likelihood your work will be cited, and will increase its reach and impact. It is worth noting that many institutions (including LSHTM), plus major funders, require research articles to be open access immediately on publication.

If you do not have the funds to publish in a fully open access journal that requires a fee, you can still make your article open access by:

Choosing an open access journal that does not charge a fee. These are also known as diamond open access journals. The Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org) provides a searchable list of journals that do not charge a fee.
Asking the journal for a fee waiver. Many open access publishers have waiver schemes for which you may be eligible.
If you are affiliated to an institution, using an agreement known as a ‘read and publish’ deal (or transformative agreement) between the publisher and your library, may enable you to publish open access at no additional cost.

Publishing in a hybrid journal and making the accepted manuscript version open access in a repository such as LSHTM Research Online. This is known as the green open access route.

4. Making your decision

Hopefully by following the steps above you’ll have narrowed your original list of journals down to a more manageable number and now have a shortlist of journals you want to target.

It’s a good idea to have two to three options so you’re ready to resubmit if rejected from your first choice. You should only submit to one journal at a time.

If you are finding it hard to make your final decision, think about your priorities as a researcher and what you hope to achieve with this publication. If you’re thinking only about promotion and CV building, go for a journal recommended by a supervisor or senior colleague that is a good fit in terms of aims and scope. If you want the research out there as fast as possible, go for a journal with a higher acceptance rate or faster processing time.

5. Avoiding predatory journals

Predatory journals seek to exploit the pressure researchers are under to publish their work. They are low quality and perform no peer review. They will usually charge a fee to publish and often misrepresent their readership, metrics and editorial board. In some cases they may even duplicate a legitimate journal’s website.

Predatory journals approach researchers directly, inviting them to submit a paper. If you are unsure about the quality of any journal, there are a few things you can do/consider:

Do you or your colleagues know the journal? Has anyone you know published in it?
Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?
If it’s an open access journal, is it listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals?
Are the articles indexed in services that you use, e.g. PubMed?
Is it clear what fees will be charged?
Is the publisher a member of a recognised body such as COPE (the Committee of Publication Ethics).
The website ‘Think, Check, Submit’ provides a useful checklist.
Contact your library.

See our previous post by John Heyderman for more information on how to avoid predatory publishers.

Posted 12th February 2025

A Classification for Medical and Veterinary Libraries (LSHTM Press, 2024)

Eloise Carpenter, Collection Services Manager, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

We are delighted to announce the publication of the 3rd edition of A Classification for Medical and Veterinary Libraries by Cyril Cuthbert Barnard, revised by Eloise Carpenter. This is also the first book published by LSHTM Press.

Barnard, CC 2024, A classification for medical and veterinary libraries, rev. E Carpenter, LSHTM Press, London.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56920/lshtmp-1.
License: CC-BY-NC 4.0

Preface to the third edition copied below:

In 1936, Cyril Cuthbert Barnard (1894-1959) published the first edition of his Classification for Medical and Veterinary Libraries. Barnard was the first professional librarian at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), in post between 1921-1959. While selecting resources, it had soon become apparent to Barnard that the classification schemes available at the time were not suitable for the specialist focus of LSHTM. Barnard devised his own classification scheme focusing on tropical medicine and public health, revising it in 1955 to accommodate new and emerging subjects. The LSHTM Library, together with other academic libraries and health organisations, has used the scheme ever since.

During the summer of 2019, the Library decided to embark on a project to review and update Barnard’s classification scheme. There were several motivations for this long overdue revision. Classifying twenty first century resources with a scheme based in the 1950s was proving a frustrating experience for Library staff, but also more importantly for readers trying to locate resources. Advances in science and medical knowledge meant some classifications placed subjects in classes they no longer belonged in. This was not only inaccurate but unhelpful for readers browsing the Library shelves or trying to find similar items in a catalogue search. Many subjects being taught and researched today had no class mark in the schedules so local amendments abounded. Several subjects displayed the prominence that they had enjoyed in the post-war years with lengthy lists of class marks no longer relevant for contemporary research. The resulting medley of class marks was increasingly unsatisfactory and brought into sharp focus with the introduction of an annual collection evaluation exercise and periodic mapping exercise. Correct and meaningful reporting on subjects contained in the Library’s collections and mapping them to research priorities and teaching interests of LSHTM relies on effective analysis of metadata contained in catalogue records. Accurate placing of subjects within the schedules is fundamental for enabling access to resources and for ensuring productive collection management.

When Barnard amended his scheme in the 1950s Britain was experiencing unprecedented social and political change. In addition to initiatives in health, welfare and education provision, Britain was faced with the ‘end of Empire’ and the shifting balance of power from colonialism to independence. However, the withdrawal of colonial power did not lead to a decolonisation of thought and practice. The legacy of colonial and imperial history remained embedded in British society, including universities and their libraries. The coloniality of knowledge and prominence given to Western thought reproduced itself in the content of library collections and library practices. Traditionally the nature of library collections has been to control and classify resources resulting in cataloguing and classification conventions which promote Western thought and knowledge structures: subject headings rooted in a racist and sexist past, colonial taxonomies, language that appropriates or ignores the ‘other’ so perpetuating ideas of inferiority and superiority, and the geo-politicisation of knowledge. The bias inherent in the language and structure of the scheme is repeated in the search hierarchies and language of library discovery tools. Decolonising Barnard’s classification scheme was therefore essential as part of the revision process, and in supporting the aim of LSHTM in decolonising its curriculum and pedagogy.

This revised edition provides a classification scheme which meets modern library and information services collections requirements and reflects current research and teaching priorities in public and global health. The 1950s language of inequality, oppression and societal power relations has been replaced by one which promotes equality, diversity and inclusion. This edition is also the first one to be published as open access. Barnard believed no library could be self-sufficient and strongly advocated for the sharing of knowledge and resources. Throughout his career, Barnard supported national and international collaboration between libraries and librarians. In our modern global society, libraries and open access publishing are recognised as key players for achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals by providing improved access to information and knowledge. The Barnard classification scheme supports these objectives. Open access publication enables the scheme to be freely available to as many libraries and organisations as possible and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable future.

For further information about the scheme, email library@lshtm.ac.uk

This post was originally written for the LSHTM Library, Archive & Open Research Services blog

Posted 12th February 2025

Avoiding predatory publishers

John Heyderman

LSHTM Library, Archive & Open Research Services

As the scholarly publishing landscape continues to evolve, researchers face the challenge of how to tell reputable journals from predatory ones. Predatory journals exploit researchers by promising quick publication without rigorous peer review, often resulting in the dissemination of poor-quality research. Fees can be hidden in the small print resulting in surprise invoices and threatening emails when the author’s institution refuses to pay up.

Although there sometimes appears to be grey area between legitimate and predatory journals 2019, a panel including publishers, librarians, researchers, and others were able to word a definition:

“Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.”
(Grudniewicz, Agnes et al, ‘Predatory journals: no definition, no defence’, Nature 576, 210-212 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y)

But how does an early career researcher avoid falling into the trap of handing over their research outputs to such a nefarious publisher? Here are six questions to ask when considering whether to submit to a journal:

1. What is the Journal's Reputation

Look carefully at the Journal’s Website: Is there clear information about the journal’s editorial board, peer review process, and indexing in reputable databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science)?
Beware of Unsolicited Emails: Have you received an email inviting you to submit your work? Check out the journal thoroughly before proceeding. It is unusual for reputable journals to solicit articles, and only then for special issues covering specific topics.

2. What is the Journal’s Peer Review Process?

Too Good to Be True?: Rapid acceptance without proper peer review is a red flag. Although it is be frustrating when journals sit on articles, it is a sign of a legitimate publisher that it takes time to evaluate submissions.
Check for Editorial Board Members: Verify that the journal’s editorial board consists of people you know to be experts in your field.

3. How high is the Quality of Published Articles?

Read Other Articles: Browse through recent issues to assess the quality of research published. Are the articles well-written and scientifically sound.
Look for citations in other journals: Are the journal’s articles elsewhere, especially in articles published by well-established journals. And beware of journals where the articles are cited mainly in other journals put out by the same publisher!
Beware of Poor Grammar and Clumsy English: Predatory journals often publish badly written articles with grammatical errors.

4. What is their Fee and Copyright Policy

Publication Fees: Legitimate journals may charge article processing charges, but they should be open and transparent about costs. Predatory journals may surprise you with hidden fees.
Copyright Transfer: Understand the journal’s copyright policies. Some predatory journals demand full copyright transfer which could prevent you from publishing similar research outputs elsewhere.

5. Do they have a reputation, whether good or bad?

Consult Trusted Colleagues, Mentors and Supervisors: Ask colleagues and mentors about reputable journals in your field.
Use Whitelists: Consult resources like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify trustworthy journals.

6. Do they promise fast-track submission to publication?

Quality Over Speed: Prioritize quality over rapid publication. A well-reviewed article in a reputable journal counts more than a rushed one in a predatory outlet.

Navigating the scholarly publishing landscape demands caution and guidance. Asking these questions can help you safeguard your work and contribute to the integrity of research in your field.

P-hacking and how to prevent it

P-Hacking or data dredging is the practice of analyzing data until you find the results needed to back up your hypothesis. However, in many cases this practice is unintentional and researchers follow the P-hacking route without fully realizing they are doing it.

The scientific method is built on formulating a hypothesis, designing the study, running the study, analyzing the data and then publishing the study (1). Through the strict adherence to these steps in a transparent and clear manner, what is published will provide evidence for the initial hypothesis or not. In most cases, the published results are positive and this is where the issue of P-hacking comes in. During the analysis stage, researchers can identify positive results when there isn’t any. As Munafo, et al. states, whilst scientists should be open to new and important insights they need to simultaneously avoid being led astray by the tendency to see structure in randomness (2).

P-hacking can derive from apophenia, confirmation bias and hindsight bias. Apophenia is when people pick up patterns in random data, they are looking for a significant result and will keep looking until it is ‘discovered’. The inbuilt basis is amplified by the makeup of data analysis, there are a multitude of ways in analyzing the same data, making it more likely to identify false positives. Hypotheses may emerge that fit the data and are then reported without indication or recognition that you are hypothezing after the results (3)

How then can we prevent P-hacking

To avoid cognitive bias you can introduce a blinding element into the process, such as between the data analysis and key parts of the data. Improved statistical training and being able to replicate the result from the same sample size. Research reproducibility is key to ensuring that identifying a significant result can be reproduced with a clear and transparent methodology and study design. Preregistration was introduced to tackle publication bias, ensuring that papers are published regardless of the final outcome of the study, it can also be used against P-hacking by preventing the outcome being switched during data analysis, as the proposed study has already been registered and needs to be followed all the way through. There is a wider issue around research culture which sways towards competitiveness rather than collaboration. Researchers are under pressure to publish papers and with most journals, publication is tied to positive and not negative or null results. Until there is less push and pull to publish papers that confirm a novel hypothesis rather than through robust scientific method, then p-hacking will be difficult to avoid.

References

Bezak, et al. The Open Science Training Book. TIB, Hannover Germany (2018) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496
Munafò, M., Nosek, B., Bishop, D. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1, 0021 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Kerr, N. L., HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2, 196–217 (1998).

Posted 8th March 2024

Launch of LSHTM Press

Launched in September 2022, the new institutional publisher LSHTM Press will publish peer-reviewed research and high-quality educational resources, in accordance with the LSHTM mission to improve health and health equity in the UK and worldwide.

As with other similar institutional publishing initiatives, LSHTM Press has developed to support open publishing where costs are transparent and kept to a minimum. This is in response to funder mandates for open access, and will be an alternative to commercial publishing venues where the costs charged to authors for open access have been escalating with little transparency. In addition, LSHTM Press aims to facilitate innovative and experimental publishing methods while striving towards equity in academic publishing in global health.

LSHTM Press has launched with, and will continue to develop, a focus on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), and is in alignment with central LSHTM vision and values. Two dedicated EDI leads sit on the LSHTM Press Steering Committee, and the whole team is committed to promoting inclusivity and reducing barriers.

Professor of Epidemiology at LSHTM, Elizabeth Brickley, said: “The Press is committed to ensuring fair representation with respect to gender, race and ethnicity, and country of origin. Editorial boards will be expected to include experts from the countries and regions in which the research is primarily conducted, particularly where the research is undertaken in low and middle income countries. And applications from new journals will be expected to provide details of how they will ensure continued compliance with the EDI strategy, for example how they will approach peer-reviewer selection and their approach to authorship.”

The LSHTM-affiliated journal Community Ear and Hearing Health is the first journal to join forces with LSHTM Press, with another soon to be announced.

Posted 15th February 2024

Community Ear and Hearing Health

The first journal to be published by LSHTM Press, Community Ear and Hearing Health is an annual publication to promote ear and hearing health in low- and middle-income countries. It aims to facilitate continuing education for ear and hearing health workers at all levels of the health system, with a focus on those based in the community. A print version is distributed free of charge to almost 4,000 healthcare workers in 181 countries. Each issue has a theme and is made up of commissioned articles (or practice notes), focusing on practical impact in low resource settings with a lot of visual elements.

CEHH has been in print since 2004 with a basic online presence. Since CEHH was integrated into LSHTM Press and has developed its new website, it can develop as both a print and an online publication, with the hope that the new online edition will reach even more health workers. The latest issue ‘Human resources: what happens after training?’ (Vol.19, Issue 23) was published in early 2023. By partnering with LSHTM Press and utilizing the tools available via its platform, there has been a noticeable increase in engagement with the online edition.

Ear and hearing problems in low and middle-income countries are usually seen at primary level by personnel who may not be specialized in this field. CEHH offers practical advice, promotes ear and hearing health and facilitated continuing education for all levels of ear and hearing health worker, including those based in the community.

Posted 15th February 2024

UKRI Policy on long-form outputs

From January 2024, the UKRI open access policy will apply to monographs, book chapters and edited collections.

Making your long-form output open access means that the results of publicly funded research are available to everyone for free under conditions that enable them to be re-used and built upon.

Researchers funded by any of the UK research councils under UKRI can apply for funding, via their institution, to publish their long-form output open access. Exemptions and limitations apply.

In summary, the core requirements of the policy are:

your final Version of Record or Author’s Accepted Manuscript must be free to view and download via an online publication platform, publisher’s website, or institutional or subject repository within a maximum of 12 months of publication
images, illustrations, tables and other supporting content should be included in the open access version, where possible
the open access version of your publication must have a Creative Commons licence, with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence preferred. An Open Government Licence is also permitted. (This requirement does not apply to third party materials included in your publication)

These requirements and definitions of in-scope and exempt types of publication are further detailed in the UKRI open access policy.

If you are funded by UKRI and seeking to publish your long-form output open access get in touch with us at LSHTMPress@lshtm.ac.uk.

Posted 15th February 2024