bims-skolko Biomed news
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒03‒10
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Account Res. 2019 Mar 07.
    Resnik DB, Morales M, Landrum R, Shi M, Minnier J, Vasilevsky NA, Champieux RE.
      Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factor and discipline are associated the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1591277
  2. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 06. 19(1): 48
    Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, Cobo E, Hren D, Boutron I.
      BACKGROUND: A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.METHODS: We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis.
    RESULTS: We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18).
    CONCLUSION: Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.
    Keywords:  Methods; Peer review; Quality control; Report; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x
  3. Nature. 2019 03;567(7746): 15-16
    Gaind N.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00758-x
  4. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019 Mar 06. e13100
    Dal-Ré R.
      Science is an accumulative activity: future studies are based on past observations. And this can only happen if scientific results are published. Everything that prevents or hinders its dissemination, hurts science and, ultimately, society. Subscription journals are an impediment to open access to scientific publications. cOAlition S, a consortium of national research agencies and Science Europe, an association of European Research Funding Organizations and Research Performing Organizations, with the support of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Commission, launched the Plan S whereby, starting in January 2020, all publications from the funded research will be accessible and free of charge to any citizen [1]. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  Europe; funders; gold route; green route; open access; public agencies; publications; scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13100
  5. Nature. 2019 03;567(7746): 17-18
    Perkel JM.
      
    Keywords:  Cancer; Publishing; Software; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00724-7
  6. J Integr Med. 2019 Feb 20. pii: S2095-4964(19)30023-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Hu CS.
      It's very important to enhance the quality of scientific papers produced by postgraduates and scholars from academic institutions. To encourage their academic and professional development, these young scientists should be encouraged to compose nonresearch articles, in addition to original research articles, including short essays, perspectives and reviews.
    Keywords:  Article type; Postgraduates; Scholars; Scientific papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joim.2019.02.003
  7. J Adv Nurs. 2019 Mar 05.
    Watson R.
      I am often asked: 'which articles get published in JAN?' or 'what kind of articles are you looking for?' and I find both questions hard to answer. My honest answer to the first question is: 'those articles that survive the review process and are then accepted by the editors' and to the second question: 'those articles that will meet the criteria in the previous answer.' I think I know why people ask and it is not merely out of curiosity. They want to see if they can have a shortcut to getting published; if they only knew what got published…they'd write it! This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13992
  8. Perspect Clin Res. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):10(1): 4-8
    Anand G, Joshi M.
      Publications in peer-reviewed journals as well as oral and poster presentations for scientific conferences comes under the purview of GPP3 guideline. The GPP3 has kept pace with the changes in publication practices and focusses on every burning aspect of publications. The present paper evaluates the purview of GPP3 guideline in context with the evolving role of medical writer (MW) in the present times. A MW plays an important role to in producing high quality authentic documents. The role of professional MW have previously been emphasised upon in previous versions of GPP guidelines, and have been instrumental in acknowledging role of MWs in medical publications and cementing their existence rather than them being termed as 'ghostwriters'. Additionally the paper focuses on evolving publication and research presentation standards with reference to other guidelines. The paper also focusses on clarity on reimbursements which is in contrast to other Acts (Sunshine Act). Most importantly, the expectations from subsequent guidelines are also discussed which may form basis of subsequent GPP guidelines.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Sunshine Act; good publication practice; publications; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_31_18
  9. Nature. 2019 03;567(7746): 5
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00786-7
  10. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019 Mar;62(2): 131-135
    Yang HJ.
      In the circumstances of overflowing numbers of medical journals, progress of their own medical journal is one of the primary concerns of many medical societies. Among the 46-year-history of Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (JKNS), it undertook a period of important transition and preparation to take off for journal with international reputation during the period from 2001 to 2006. The overall process of manuscript handling, peer review, and editorial work has undergone systematic improvement. Workshops for authors, reviewer and editors were held, which were very helpful to improve the quality of submitted manuscript, peer review and editorial processing. Articles on the history, current status of the JKNS, citations and the change of proportion of types of articles were published, which provided insight about present condition and direction for further progress. It was changed into English journal in 2005. These efforts resulted in registration of the journal Chemical Abstract Service in 2005 and Science Citation Index Expanded in 2008 and SCOPUS in 2009. Now JKNS has become international journal, with about half of the submitted manuscripts from abroad, with increasing impact factor. Along with the effort of Korean Neurosurgical Society (KNS) members and support of KNS, dedication of Professor Dong Gyu Kim for the progress of JKNS is worth remembering, who served as Editor-in-Chief of JKNS during this period.
    Keywords:  Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society ∙ Progress ∙ Korean Neurosurgical Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0197