bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒06‒16
thirteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2019 Feb;19(1): e51-e57
    Beshyah SA.
      Objectives: This study aimed to assess the factors that influence authors' decision when choosing a journal for publication and to assess authors' attitudes and practices regarding emerging journals.Methods: This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted between April and July 2017 at Dubai Medical College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on a convenience sample of 2,764 healthcare professionals.
    Results: A total of 250 responses were received (response rate: 9%) and 152 valid respondents were included in this study (5.6%), of which the majority were male (61.2%) and aged 41-60 years (68%) from the Middle East and Africa. Most respondents (88.8%) had medical and/or dental qualifications and the majority were in senior clinical (55%) and academic (71.5%) positions. More than half of the respondents (62.5%) had published at least one article in the previous five years. Results showed that journal impact factor (JIF), indexation status, free submission and being international were important among respondents. Based on the respondents that shared their encounters with emerging journals (n = 114), 62 respondents (54.4%) regularly read certain emerging journals, 51 (44.7%) had been a peer-reviewer, 48 (42.1%) had cited content from an emerging journal at least once and 45 (39.5%) had published in emerging journals. Only 18 respondents (14.2%) were not convinced with the need for emerging journals and believed that all researchers should compete for publication in the same international journals.
    Conclusion: Selection of target journals is driven mainly by JIF, indexation status, free submission and a journal's international status. A diverse range of opinions and attitudes regarding emerging journals were observed in this study.
    Keywords:  Attitude; Editorial Policy; Indexing; Journal Impact Factor; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Publications; United Arab Emirates
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2019.19.01.010
  2. Cell Stem Cell. 2019 Jun 06. pii: S1934-5909(19)30221-8. [Epub ahead of print]24(6): 843-848
    Saxe JP.
      In this Backstory, Cell Stem Cell Senior Scientific Editor Jonathan Saxe presents a case study of two Cell Stem Cell papers published in 2018. Using the correspondences between authors, editors, and reviewers as tools, he provides broader insights and tips into navigating the journal's editorial consideration process.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.017
  3. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 11
    Foster C, Wager E, Marchington J, Patel M, Banner S, Kennard NC, Panayi A, Stacey R, .
      Research that has been sponsored by pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies is often presented at scientific and medical conferences. However, practices vary between organizations and it can be difficult to follow both individual conference requirements and good publication practice guidelines. Until now, no specific guidelines or recommendations have been available to describe best practice for conference presentations. This document was developed by a working group of publication professionals and uploaded to PeerJ Preprints for consultation prior to publication; an additional 67 medical societies, medical conference sites and conference companies were also asked to comment. The resulting recommendations aim to complement current good publication practice and authorship guidelines, outline the general principles of best practice for conference presentations and provide recommendations around authorship, contributorship, financial transparency, prior publication and copyright, to conference organizers, authors and industry professionals. While the authors of this document recognize that individual conference guidelines should be respected, they urge organizers to consider authorship criteria and data transparency when designing submission sites and setting parameters around word/character count and content for abstracts. It is also important to recognize that conference presentations have different limitations to full journal publications, for example, in the case of limited audiences that necessitate refocused abstracts, or where lead authors do not speak the local language, and these have been acknowledged accordingly. The authors also recognize the need for further clarity regarding copyright of previously published abstracts and have made recommendations to assist with best practice. By following Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GPCAP recommendations, industry professionals, authors and conference organizers will improve consistency, transparency and integrity of publications submitted to conferences worldwide.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0070-x
  4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019 Jun;69(6): 888-891
    Memon AR, Azim ME.
      The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) is a globally trending initiative for author name disambiguation and serves as a 'digital curriculum vitae' for displaying an individual's research output. Although there are several other tools similar to ORCID, the collaborative efforts by ORCID make it the most attractive option. Most of the organizations and publishers are increasingly adopting ORCID in their systems, and authors from West and other parts of the world have attempted to create awareness about ORCID initiative. However, researchers from Pakistan and other developing countries should be introduced to this concept and be encouraged to adopt to such initiatives. Therefore, this paper aims to present a brief introduction to author identifiers, with special focus on the ORCID.
    Keywords:   Author Identifier; Open Researchers and Contributors ID; ORCID; Scholarly publishing.
  5. Nature. 2019 06;570(7760): 139
    Aguzzi A.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01787-2
  6. Psychol Bull. 2019 Jul;145(7): 764
      Reports an error in "What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research" by T. D. Stanley, Evan C. Carter and Hristos Doucouliagos (Psychological Bulletin, 2018[Dec], Vol 144[12], 1325-1346). In the article, the Open Science Framework (OSF) URL for the data has now been included in the author note. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-51211-001.) Can recent failures to replicate psychological research be explained by typical magnitudes of statistical power, bias or heterogeneity? A large survey of 12,065 estimated effect sizes from 200 meta-analyses and nearly 8,000 papers is used to assess these key dimensions of replicability. First, our survey finds that psychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power. The median of median power across these 200 areas of research is about 36%, and only about 8% of studies have adequate power (using Cohen's 80% convention). Second, the median proportion of the observed variation among reported effect sizes attributed to heterogeneity is 74% (I2). Heterogeneity of this magnitude makes it unlikely that the typical psychological study can be closely replicated when replication is defined as study-level null hypothesis significance testing. Third, the good news is that we find only a small amount of average residual reporting bias, allaying some of the often-expressed concerns about the reach of publication bias and questionable research practices. Nonetheless, the low power and high heterogeneity that our survey finds fully explain recent difficulties to replicate highly regarded psychological studies and reveal challenges for scientific progress in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000203
  7. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2019 Jun 12. e13327
    Strugala N, Persson PB.
      We evaluated the association of referees' gender with various manuscript-scoring items, such as accept/reject recommendations, overall priority ratings and news value scoring. Outcome was tested statistically by the Chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney-U-test. Such simple analysis are obviously not free of confounding factors. For instance, today's academic recruitment policies aim at increasing the number of women in science. Thus, even if we detect gender related scoring dissimilarities, the scoring inconsistency may reflect a difference in age rather than in gender. As we do not document reviewer's age, eliminating this possible influence is hardly possible. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13327
  8. Lancet. 2019 Jun 08. pii: S0140-6736(19)31322-4. [Epub ahead of print]393(10188): 2276
    The Lancet Group .
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31322-4
  9. Lab Invest. 2019 Jun;99(6): 734-735
    Lazar A.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41374-019-0261-6
  10. J Aging Soc Policy. 2019 Jun 09. 1-14
    Bass SA, Caro FG, Miller EA.
      In this essay the current and previous editors discuss the history of the Journal of Aging & Social Policy. In reviewing the past thirty years of publishing the Journal, one can see three phases: Phase 1 took pace during the first decade (1989-1997), Phase 2 covered the next decade and a half or so (1998-2015), and Phase 3 reflects the past five years, a period of continuing growth and success (2016-Present). Despite its inevitable challenges, the Journal of Aging & Social Policy overcame each and has arrived. Today, it is a well-respected Journal that attracts excellent scholarship from around the world, that is well-cited, and that has earned the Journal a commendable impact factor. The editors are proud of that evolution. However, success is never final. The Journal will require continued effective stewardship as it looks to the next thirty years and beyond.
    Keywords:  Publishing; aging policy; history; journal; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1626206