bims-skolko Biomed news
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒03‒24
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Mar 19. pii: sjz059. [Epub ahead of print]
    Alexander H.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz059
  2. BJOG. 2019 Mar 22.
    Chambers LJ, Michener CM, Falcone T.
      OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of retracted articles and examine reasons for retraction within the obstetrics and gynecology literature.DESIGN: Retrospective review of the PubMed Database.
    SETTING: N/A.
    POPULATION: Obstetrics and gynecology articles published from indexation until June 2018.
    METHODS: Articles were identified using keywords for retracted articles in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Descriptive statistics were performed.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of article retraction, given reasons for retraction and article demographics.
    RESULTS: 176 articles were identified with a median time to retraction of two years; over three-quarters were retracted within the last decade (n=136; 77.3%). The median journal impact factor was 2.5 (range of 0.26-52.67). Sub-specialties with the highest number of retractions were gynecologic oncology (n=76; 43.2%), gynecology (n=36; 20.5%) and obstetrics (n=31; 17.6%). Among 176 first authors, 18 authors (10.2%) had two or more retracted articles. Clinical research articles accounted for approximately one-half of retracted articles (n=87; 49.4%). Among the clinical studies, 10.2% (n=18) were randomized control trials, 16.5% (n=29) were prospective and 13.1% (n=23) were retrospective studies. Plagiarism (n=40; 22.7%) and data falsification (n=37; 21.0%) were the most common reasons.
    CONCLUSIONS: Article retraction within the obstetrics and gynecology literature is increasing. The most frequently cited reasons for article retractions were plagiarism, errors in data, fabricated results, article duplication and compromised peer review. Consequences of article retractions to patient care and the scientific community can be significant. Thorough screening of manuscripts prior to publication should be prioritized. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  article retraction; obstetrics and gynecology; plagiarism; research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15689
  3. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019 Feb;83(1): 7210
    Pond BB, Brown SD, Stewart DW, Roane DS, Harirforoosh S.
      Recently, scientific publishing has experienced an expansion of journals and publishers whose primary goal is profit and whose peer review process is virtually non-existent. These "predatory" or "opportunistic" journals pose a threat to the credibility and integrity of legitimate scientific literature, and quality science. Unfortunately, many scientists choose to publish in these journals and/or serve on their editorial boards, either due to ease of rapid publication or naivety. Here, we highlight the extensive use of predatory publications or editorial board involvement by applicants applying for a faculty position in the Pharmaceutical Sciences department at the Bill Gatton College of Pharmacy at East Tennessee State University. We caution search committees at other pharmacy schools to thoroughly examine applicant curricula vitarum (CVs) for predatory publishing.
    Keywords:  applicants; faculty; journals; pharmacy; predatory
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7210
  4. Neth J Med. 2019 Feb;77(2): 92-96
    Dal-Ré R, Marušić A.
      BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has expressed its concerns about predatory journals using the list of ICMJE Recommendations (ICMJE-R) followers to "gain the appearance of legitimacy." We assessed the presence of potential predatory journals on the ICMJE-R list and their adherence to ICMJE recommendations.METHODS: A random sample of 350 journals from the estimated 3,100-3,200 biomedical journals listed as ICMJE-R followers was chosen. Data collected from the ICMJE and journal webpages in English were: adherence to six ICMJE-R policies/requirements, year of journal's listing as ICMJE-R follower, discipline covered, publisher and its country of origin and existence of article processing charge. Potential predatory journal was considered as one open access journal not being a member of a recognized listing in COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, AJOL and/or INASP.
    RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of journals were considered to be potentially predatory; 94% of them were included in the ICMJE-R list in 2014-2018. Half were published in the United States and 62% were devoted to medicine. Adherence to five of the six policies/requirements was infrequent, ranging from 51% (plagiarism) to 7% (trial registration). Seventy-two percent of journals mentioned a policy on authors' conflicts of interest. Information on article processing charge was available for 76% journals and could not be found for 22%. Authorship policy/ instructions were significantly more present in journals with publishers from India than from the USA (53% vs 30%; p = 0.047), with no differences in the other five policies.
    CONCLUSION: Predatory journals should be deleted from the ICMJE-R list of followers to prevent misleading authors. ICMJE-R following journals need to be reevaluated with pre-defined published criteria.
  5. Gac Sanit. 2019 Mar 14. pii: S0213-9111(19)30036-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Catalá-López F, Ridao M, Bernal-Delgado E, Moher D, Repullo JR.
      OBJECTIVE: To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals.METHOD: Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network.
    RESULTS: Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%).
    DISCUSSION: Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers.
    Keywords:  CHEERS; Cost-effectiveness; Coste-efectividad; Guía de publicación; Reporting guideline
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.12.006
  6. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Apr 01. pii: S0360-3016(19)30036-7. [Epub ahead of print]103(5): 1043-1044
    Zietman AL, Yom SS, Braverman LC.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.01.001
  7. Eur Heart J. 2019 Mar 21. 40(12): 952-953
    Tofield A.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz105
  8. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2018 Dec;27(6): 664-667
    Zhang HH, Li XL, Xu L.
      Typesetting is an important step in journal publishing process. There will be many differences between the original articles and typesetted articles with typesetting software, even derivative errors caused by negligence of typesetter. All these will cause trouble for later editing and proofreading work. This paper analyzed the common errors caused by typesetting in stomatological journals, in order to provide a reference for improving the quality of journal.
  9. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Mar 18.
    Greenhalgh T, Ozbilgin MF, Prainsack B, Shaw S.
      BACKGROUND: In 2018, a so-called crisis developed in the international network of systematic reviewers known as Cochrane. It was widely depicted in terms of two competing narratives-"bad behaviour" by one member of Cochrane's Governing Board and scientific and moral decline within Cochrane.OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to distil insights on the structural issues underpinning the crisis, without taking a definitive position on the accuracy of either narrative.
    APPROACH AND DATASET: In this paper, we draw on (among other theories) Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurship and Foucault's conceptualisation of power to analyse the claims and counterclaims made by different parties. Our dataset consisted of publicly available materials (blogs, journal articles, newspaper articles) to end 2018, notably those relating to the expulsion of one Governing Board member.
    MAIN FINDINGS: Both narratives include strong moral claims about the science of systematic review and the governance of scientific organizations. The expelled individual and his supporters defined good systematic reviews in terms of a particular kind of methodological rigour and elimination of bias, and good governance largely in terms of measures to achieve independence from industry influence. Most of Cochrane's Governing Board and their sympathizers evaluated systematic reviews according to a broader range of criteria, incorporating factors such as attention to relationships among reviewers and reflexivity and dialogue around scientific and other judgements. They viewed governance partly in terms of accountability to an external advisory group. Power-knowledge alignments in Cochrane have emerged from, and contributed to, a particular system of meaning which is now undergoing evolution and challenge.
    CONCLUSION: Polarizing Cochrane's "crisis" into two narratives, only one of which is true, is less fruitful than viewing it in terms of a duality consisting of tensions between the two positions, each of which has some validity. Having framed the conflict as primarily philosophical and political rather than methodological and procedural, we suggest how Cochrane and its supporters and critics might harness their tensions productively.
    Keywords:  evidence-based medicine; philosophy of medicine; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13124
  10. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Mar 14. pii: S0273-2300(19)30079-0. [Epub ahead of print]104 115-127
    Boué S, Schlage WK, Page D, Hoeng J, Peitsch MC.
      Offering safer alternatives to cigarettes, such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, to smokers who are not willing to quit could reduce the harm caused by smoking. Extensive and rigorous scientific studies are conducted to assess the relative risk of such potentially modified risk tobacco products compared with that of smoking cigarettes. In addition to the peer review of publications reporting individual studies, we aimed to gauge the plausibility of the evidence to the scientific community and appreciate likely necessary additions prior to regulatory submission. Therefore, we sponsored a two-tier peer review organized by an independent third party who identified, recruited, and managed 7 panels of 5-12 experts whose identity remains unknown to us. The reviewers had access to all publications and raw data from preclinical and clinical studies via a web portal. The reviewers were asked questions regarding study design, methods, quality of data, and interpretation of results to judge the validity of the conclusions regarding the relative effects of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 compared with cigarettes. Once their conclusions were submitted, the experts had the opportunity to participate in an anonymized online debate with their fellow panel members. We present here the results obtained from this innovative peer review effort which revealed supportive or very supportive of the study methods and results, and support the robustness of the studies and validity of the conclusions.
    Keywords:  Clinical assessment; Nonclinical assessment; Peer review; Scientific assessment; Tobacco harm reduction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.03.007
  11. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Jan;17(1): e88155
    Ghasemi A, Bahadoran Z, Zadeh-Vakili A, Montazeri SA, Hosseinpanah F.
      The materials and methods (M&M) section is the heart of a scientific paper and is subject to initial screening of the editor to decide whether the manuscript should be sent for external review. If the M&M section of a scientific paper be considered as a recipe, its ingredients would be who, what, when, where, how, and why. M&M should effectively respond to the study question/hypothesis using the following basic elements including materials, study design, study population/subjects or animals, methods of measurements/assessments, and statistical analysis. A well-organized M&M permits other scientists to evaluate the study findings and repeat the experiments. Although there are several disciplinary differences in the M&M, similar dos and don'ts may be considered to organize a well-written M&M. Briefly, authors need to provide clear-cut, adequate, and detailed information in the M&M section. In this review, the structure, the principles, and the most common recommendations for writing the M&M section are provided, both in general and study-specific; these could help authors effectively prepare the M&M section of a scientific biomedical manuscript.
    Keywords:  Materials and Methods; Medical Scientific Journals; Medical Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.88155
  12. Front Psychol. 2019 ;10 295
    Lundwall RA, Hodges CB, Kotter AD.
      
    Keywords:  graduate students; mentoring; publishing; undergraduates; writing experience
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00295
  13. Cien Saude Colet. 2019 Mar;pii: S1413-81232019000300929. [Epub ahead of print]24(3): 929-939
    Barata RB.
      The article aims to bring to the attention of readers and potential authors some aspects of the difficulties faced by scientific editors of Public Health journals. It discusses critical aspects, highlighting the expectations of authors, readers, editors and publishers; and presents results of empirical studies on publishing predictors, types and quality of peer review, formal characteristics of the publishing process, the working process of two Brazilian and one foreign Public Health journal, ethical issues involving authors and editors, specific editorial challenges faced by Brazilian Public Health journals, and the future of publications in the open access model scenario.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018243.29952016
  14. Haemophilia. 2019 Mar;25(2): 181-182
    Makris M, Kessler C.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.13732
  15. Climacteric. 2019 Apr;22(2): 109-110
    Pickar JH.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2019.1560925