bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒05‒12
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2): e20
    Pitman A, Underwood R, Hamilton A, Tyrer P, Yang M.
      BACKGROUND: Biomedical research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is poorly represented in Western European and North American psychiatric journals.AimsTo test the feasibility of trialling a capacity-building intervention to improve LMIC papers' representation in biomedical journals.METHOD: We designed an enhanced peer-review intervention delivered to LMIC corresponding/first authors of papers rejected by the British Journal of Psychiatry. We conducted a feasibility study, inviting consenting authors to be randomised to intervention versus none, measuring recruitment and retention rates, outcome completion and author/reviewer-rated acceptability.
    RESULTS: Of the 26/121 consenting to participate, 12 were randomised to the intervention and 14 to the control arms. Outcome completion was 100% but qualitative feedback from authors/reviewers was mixed, with attrition from 5/12 (42%) of intervention reviewers.
    CONCLUSIONS: Low interest among eligible authors and variable participation of expert reviewers suggested low feasibility of a full trial and a need for intervention redesign.Declaration of interestA.P., P.T. and M.Y. are British Journal of Psychiatry editorial board members. During this study P.T. was British Journal of Psychiatry Editor, A.P. was a trainee editor and A.H. was an editorial assistant.
    Keywords:  Low and middle income countries; capacity building; feasibility study; peer review; randomized controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.89
  2. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2): e28
    Pitman A, Underwood R, Hamilton A, Tyrer P, Yang M.
      
    Keywords:  Low and middle income countries; capacity building; erratum; feasibility study; peer review; randomized controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.17
  3. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019 Jan;6(1): 1-2
    Villar RR.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz015
  4. Psychosomatics. 2019 Mar 13. pii: S0033-3182(19)30048-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Cromwell JC, Stern TA.
      BACKGROUND: Case reports continue to serve as valuable educational tools; they facilitate case-based learning and provide excellent opportunities for collaboration.OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to review the benefits of writing case reports and to analyze the characteristics of case reports published in a journal that focuses on care at the interface of psychiatry and medicine.
    METHODS: The literature on writing case reports as tools for medical education was reviewed. Then, case reports published in Psychosomatics were examined, and quantitative data (e.g., subjective quality measures, number of references and authors) were recorded.
    RESULTS: Of the 76 case reports published during a 3-year span (2015-2017), the majority examined an unusual presentation or treatment (86%), used an approach to teaching and critical thinking (84%), provided a sizable literature review (80%), and discussed a differential diagnosis of signs, symptoms, and disorders (53%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Case reports provide intellectually-challenging opportunities for learning that foster scientific thought, encourage the use of evidence-based medicine, improve writing and critical thinking, provide experience with the peer-review process, and help to develop skills needed to write scholarly publications.
    Keywords:  case reports; education; mental health; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2019.02.009
  5. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Feb 01. 20(2): 129-130
    Raj AT, Panta P, Patil S.
      The advent of digitalization has led to a rapid surge in literary publications. The increase in publications has not been matched by adequate screening from regulatory authorities. This, in turn, has caused a surge in unverified scientific data. Digital literature serves as the most predominant source of information for students of this generation. Although sources for the literature mandated in the curriculum are enlisted by the Institution, such guidelines do not extend for online sources. The major reason for students referring to invalid sources of information is due to the simplicity of presentation which is generally accomplished by the intentional/unintentional omission of key elements of the original work. Keywords: Ethics, P-hacking, Plagiarism, Predatory journals, Publications, Research.
  6. Biophys J. 2019 May 01. pii: S0006-3495(19)30337-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Dyson HJ, Hall KB, Piston DW.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2019.04.019
  7. J Orthod. 2019 Mar 27. 1465312519840039
    Turpin DL.
      Full disclosure of interests is essential for orthodontic research to be open and transparent.
    Keywords:  conflict of interest; disclosure; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312519840039
  8. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(5): e0216597
    Rovira A, Urbano C, Abadal E.
      The open access availability of publications by Catalonia's CERCA research centres was analysed to determine the extent to which authors use open access journals, repositories, social networks and other websites to disseminate their research results. A sample of 3,730 journal articles published by authors from CERCA research centres between 2011 and 2015 and available on Web of Science (out of a total output of 44,423) was analysed to identify how many were available in open access, full-text format. The results revealed that 75,8% of the total (2,828 articles) had at least one version available in open access, but just 52% (1,940 articles) had at least one version available in either journals (whether pure or hybrid open access journals or those with embargo periods) or repositories, a finding that highlights the powerful role played by academic social networks in the sharp increase in open access availability. Of the 2,828 articles for which at least one open access version was found, a total of 9,868 copies were located. With respect to versions, the publisher's final version, i.e. the type formatted for publication by journal publishers, was found in 75,3% of cases. The number of articles published in open access journals (567) was very close to the number of articles published in hybrid journals or journals with embargo periods (624). Only 40,4% of the articles in the sample were located in repositories, being the subject repositories the heaviest used. Fifty percent of the articles (1,881 publications) were posted on academic social networks, the most popular of which were ResearchGate and Academia. According to thematic areas, all six areas (science, life sciences, medical and health sciences, engineering and architecture and humanities) exceeded 70% of articles in open access.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216597
  9. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2019 May;pii: S1467-2987(19)30088-1. [Epub ahead of print]46(3): 257-259
    Bennett RC.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2019.04.003
  10. Front Psychol. 2019 ;10 857
    Giuliano TA.
      
    Keywords:  faculty-student collaboration; first authorship; publishing; undergraduate publication; undergraduate research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00857
  11. Front Psychol. 2019 ;10 915
    Giuliano TA.
      
    Keywords:  teaching writing; undergraduate publishing; undergraduate research; undergraduate writing; writing skills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00915
  12. Nature. 2019 May;569(7755): 295
    Shaikh-Lesko R.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Information technology; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01427-9
  13. J Dent. 2019 May 07. pii: S0300-5712(19)30090-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Tonetti MS.
      
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Evidence based dentistry; Impact factor; Open access; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.006
  14. Behav Public Policy. 2018 Nov;2(2): 198-206
    Maynard OM, Munafò MR.
      There are inherent differences in the priorities of academics and policy-makers. These pose unique challenges for teams such as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which has positioned itself as an organisation conducting academically rigorous behavioural science research in policy settings. Here we outline the threats to research transparency and reproducibility that stem from working with policy-makers and other non-academic stakeholders. These threats affect how we perform, communicate, verify and evaluate research. Solutions that increase research transparency include pre-registering study protocols, making data open and publishing summaries of results. We suggest an incentive structure (a simple 'nudge') that rewards BIT's non-academic partners for engaging in these practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.10
  15. Interface Focus. 2019 Jun 06. 9(3): 20190005
    Riccardi E, Pantano S, Potestio R.
      The scientific community is facing a revolution in several aspects of its modus operandi, ranging from the way science is done-data production, collection, analysis-to the way it is communicated and made available to the public, be that an academic audience or a general one. These changes have been largely determined by two key players: the big data revolution or, less triumphantly, the impressive increase in computational power and data storage capacity; and the accelerating paradigm switch in science publication, with people and policies increasingly pushing towards open access frameworks. All these factors prompt the undertaking of initiatives oriented to maximize the effectiveness of the computational efforts carried out worldwide. Taking the moves from these observations, we here propose a coordinated initiative, focusing on the computational biophysics and biochemistry community but general and flexible in its defining characteristics, which aims at addressing the growing necessity of collecting, rationalizing, sharing and exploiting the data produced in this scientific environment.
    Keywords:  FAIR; data sharing; open data; open science; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0005