Dear Editor,
The recent bibliometric study by Slawka et al.[1] explores the economic-geographic disparities across global contributions to open-access anaesthesia journals. We would like to present our observations on the same.
Notably, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) operates an independent application process in alignment with the Budapest Open Access Initiative. To maintain the accuracy of metadata, journals that have discontinued publishing are removed from the DOAJ database, even if they were previously listed, unless the journal subsequently adopts a new title.[2] Hence, the journals not applying for DOAJ listing or those ceasing to publish during the decade-long analysis period under evaluation in the index study would have been missed in the initial DOAJ search.[1,2]
Moreover, hybrid-model journals offer both open-access and subscription-based access to readers.[3] Although ‘double-dipping’ is ardently debated as a peril of hybrid publishing, its popularity in terms of high-impact factor journals and readership can indeed not be overlooked.[2,3] The inference of Slawka et al. on open access publishing, therefore, stands non-inclusive to the open access scientific content emanating from the hybrid journals in anaesthesia.[1,2,3]
Finally, as for the predatory status of the journals not being formally assessed in the present study, readership attention is brought as to how Cortegiani et al. employ a freely-accessible, updated version of the original Beall lists to identify the potential to possible, or probable predatory publishers, alongside scanning the standalone journals for fraudulent practices in open access publishing in the field of anaesthesia.[1,4]
Presentation at conferences/CMEs and abstract publication
None.
Study data availability
Not applicable.
Disclosure of use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assistive or generative tools
The authors confirm that no AI tools or language models were used in the writing or editing of the manuscript, and no images were manipulated using AI.
Declaration of use of permitted tools
Not applicable.
Supplementary material
None.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Slawka E, Guerra-Londono JJ, Hicklen RS, Solanki SL, Cukierman D, Tian J, et al. Economic and geographical disparities in global contribution to open access publishing in anaesthesiology: A bibliometric analysis. Indian J Anaesth. 2025;69:710–7. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_1281_24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.DOAJ Myth: “All open access journals can be listed in DOAJ” – DOAJ Blog. Doaj.org. 2019. Available from: https://blog.doaj.org/2019/09/17/myth-busting-all-open-access-journals-can-be-listed-in-doaj/ . [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 20]
- 3.Björk BC. Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016. Peer J. 2017;5:e3878. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cortegiani A, Longhini F, Sanfilippo F, Raineri SM, Gregoretti C, Giarratano A. Predatory open-access publishing in anesthesiology. Anesth Analg. 2019;128:182–7. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]