bims-skolko Biomed news
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒01‒13
fourteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Clin Invest. 2019 Jan 07. pii: 126932. [Epub ahead of print]
    Jackson S.
      The JCI has made all of its research freely available to readers since 1996. As open access mandates from funders, such as Plan S, gain momentum, it's worth revisiting how the JCI has created a durable publication model for free access to research and the benefits that society journals provide to the research community.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI126932
  2. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Jan 08. pii: S0273-2300(19)30003-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Kirman CR, Simon TW, Hays SM.
      Science peer review plays an important role in the advancement and acceptance of scientific information, particularly when used to support decision-making. A model for science peer review is proposed here using a large, multi-tiered case study to engage a broader segment of the scientific community to support decision making on science matters, and to incorporate many of the design advantages of the two common forms of peer review (journal peer review, science advisory panels). This peer review consisted of a two-tiered structure consisting of seven panels (five review panels in Tier 1, two review panels in Tier 2), which focused on safety data for a modified risk tobacco product (MRTP). Experts from all over the world were invited to apply to one or more positions on seven peer review panels. 66 peer reviewers were selected from available applicants using objective metrics of their expertise, and for some panels based upon a consideration of panel diversity with respect to demographic parameters (e.g., geographic region, sector of employment, years of experience). All peer reviewers participated anonymously in which a third-party auditor was used to provide independent verification of their expertise. Peer reviewers were provided electronic links to all review material which included access to publications, reports, omics data, and histopathology slides, with topic-specific panels focusing on topic-specific components of the review package. Peer reviews consisted either of single-round, or multi-round (e.g., modified Delphi) format. Peer reviewer responses to the charge questions were collected via an online survey system, and were assembled into a database. Responses in the database were subject to analyses to assess the degree of favorability (i.e., supportive of the review material), degree of consensus, reproducibility of replicate panels, hidden sources of bias, and outlier response patterns. Conclusions: By careful consideration of science peer review design elements we have shown that: 1) panel participation can be broadened to include scientists who would otherwise not participate; 2) panel diversity can be managed in an unbiased manner without adverse impacts to panel expertise; 3) results obtained from independent concurrent panels are shown to be reproducible; and 4) there are benefits of collecting input from expert panels via a structured format (i.e., survey) with respect to characterization of consensus, identification of hidden sources of bias, and identification of potential outlier participants.
    Keywords:  Anonymity; Bias; Delphi; Independence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.003
  3. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Jan 10. 1745691618810693
    Dougherty MR, Slevc LR, Grand JA.
      There is a growing interest in changing the culture of psychology to improve the quality of our science. At the root of this interest is concern over the reproducibility of key findings. A variety of large-scale replication attempts have revealed that several previously published effects cannot be reproduced, whereas other analyses indicate that the published literature is rife with underpowered studies and publication bias. These revelations suggest that it is time to change how psychological science is carried out and increase the transparency of reporting. We argue that change will be slow until institutions adopt new procedures for evaluating scholarly activity. We consider three actions that individuals and departments can take to facilitate change throughout psychological science: the development of individualized research-philosophy statements, the creation of an annotated curriculum vitae to improve the transparency of scholarly reporting, and the use of a formal evaluative system that explicitly captures behaviors that support reproducibility. Our recommendations build on proposals for open science by enabling researchers to have a voice in articulating (and contextualizing) how they would like their work to be evaluated and by providing a mechanism for more detailed and transparent reporting of scholarly activities.
    Keywords:  annotated curriculum vitae; open science; reproducibility; research philosophy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618810693
  4. J Crit Care. 2018 Dec 29. pii: S0883-9441(18)31494-1. [Epub ahead of print]50 247-249
    Cortegiani A, Sanfilippo F, Tramarin J, Giarratano A.
      PURPOSE: To evaluate the characteristics and practice of predatory journals in critical care medicine (CCM).METHODS: We checked a freely accessible online and constantly updated version of the Beall lists of potential predatory publishers/journals in the field of CCM. We checked the journals' websites to retrieve the following data such as: 1) Country and address (checked by Google maps); 2) Article processing charges (APC); 3) Indexing; 4) Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board (EB) members; 5) Number of published articles; 6) Review time (lapse submission-acceptance); 7) English form.
    RESULTS: We identified 86 CCM journals from 48 publishers. Most journals' reported address was in the US (52%). The address was unreliable in 43%. English form was low/very-low in 72% of cases. Three journals were indexed in PubMed. Several journals reported false indexing in the Committee on publication ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Google Scholar. Median APCs for research article was 909.5 USD. Name of the Editor-in-chief and EB lists were reported by 29% and 81%, respectively. Median lapse submission-acceptance for published articles was 32 days.
    CONCLUSIONS: We found a relevant number of probable predatory CCM journals. Scientists should carefully check journal's characteristics to avoid selecting predatory journals as editorial target.
    Keywords:  Biomedical journal; Critical care medicine; Open access; Predatory; Publishing models; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.12.016
  5. Health Sci Rep. 2018 Jan;1(1): e15
    Montenegro-Montero A, Young C.
      Wiley is proud to announce the launch of Health Science Reports. I talked to the Editor in Chief, Dr. Charles Young, about the journal, its philosophy, and its contribution to scientific communication in the health sciences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.15
  6. J Biomed Opt. 2019 Jan;24(1): 1-3
    Pogue BW.
      Editor-in-Chief Brian Pogue writes about publishing credibility in the field of translational biomedical optics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.24.1.010101
  7. Int J Clin Pract. 2019 Jan 10. e13310
    Citrome L.
      Progress marches on. The International Journal of Clinical Practice nows publishes on the web (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17421241) manuscripts as soon as they are accepted, even prior to formatting ("typesetting"). These can be found in the 'Accepted Articles' section and are fully citable and contain a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). This version of the published article does contain the caveat "This article has been accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record." There is a small window of opportunity to correct typographical errors when the proofs are produced but it behooves all concerned to make sure that final accepted manuscript is as perfect as possible. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13310
  8. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019 Jan;pii: S0002-8177(18)30789-X. [Epub ahead of print]150(1): 1-2
    Springer MD.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.11.010
  9. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jan 07. 34(1): e9
    Barroga E, Mitoma H.
      Scholarly article writing and publishing in international peer-reviewed journals can become an overwhelming task for many medical, nursing, and healthcare professionals in a university setting, especially in countries whose native language is not English. To help improve their scientific writing skills and publishing capacity, a university-based editing system and writing programs can be developed as educational platforms. These are delivered by a team of specialist editors composed of tenured faculty members who have a strong medical background and extensive experience in teaching courses on medical research, editing, writing, and publishing. For the editing system, the specialist editors provide comprehensive editing, personalized consultation, full editorial support after peer review, guidance with online submissions/resubmissions, and detailed editorial review at different stages of the manuscript writing. In addition, the specialist editors can develop writing programs such as medical writing and editing internships, academic courses in medical writing or research study designs and reporting standards, special interactive lectures and sessions on predatory publishing, seminars on updated editorial guidance of global editorial associations, academic visits on medical writing and editing, medical writing mentoring program, networking programs in scholarly communication, and publication resources in medical writing and scholarly publishing. These editing system and writing programs can serve as integrated platforms for improving scientific writing skills and publishing capacity by providing continuing education in medical writing, editing, publishing, and publication ethics.
    Keywords:  Editing System; Educational Platform; Publishing Capacity; Scientific Writing Skills; Writing Programs
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e9
  10. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019 Jan;69(1): 2-3
    Jawad F.
      
  11. Cult Health Sex. 2019 Jan 11. 1-17
    Allen L.
      This paper explores some of the challenges of publishing photographs generated as part of sexuality research. It aims to initiate discussion of these issues to enable sexuality researchers to consider and navigate the use of images in their work. Examples highlighting these difficulties are employed from a photo-method project which examined young people, sexuality and schooling. It is argued that existing child-sex-panics rendered these images risky and intensified their scrutiny by gatekeeping forces. The discussion contributes to a broader conversation within the field of sexualities about the constitution of sexuality research as dirty work. Specifically, the paper investigates how some publishing and editing practices might be conceptualised as constituting techniques that construct sexuality research as dirty work. By not publishing photos which form part of sexuality research, the knowledge it is possible for sexuality researchers to generate and circulate is subsequently curtailed.
    Keywords:  Young people; sexuality; schooling; photo methods; dirty work
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2018.1533586
  12. FEBS J. 2019 Jan;286(1): 4-7
    Martin SJ.
      In this Editorial, Editor-in-Chief Seamus Martin reviews developments over the past year at The FEBS Journal and highlights some ongoing challenges in the current landscape of scientific publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14733
  13. Science. 2019 Jan 11. pii: eaaw5839. [Epub ahead of print]363(6423):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw5839