bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒07‒14
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(7): e0219567
    Lim JS, Topping V, Lee JS, Bailey KD, Kim SH, Kim TW.
      BACKGROUND: English editing services are effective for improving manuscript quality as well as providing learning opportunities for non-native English-speaking authors. Herein, we describe the effects of a combined system of in-house and external editing services for handling large volumes of editing requests and providing personalized editing service in academic hospitals.METHODS: We established the Scientific Publications Team (SPT), an in-house editing team in Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. The SPT is composed of two professional editors who manage editing requests sent to external companies while also providing one-on-one in-house editing services. We gathered author satisfaction data from 936 surveys between July 2017 and December 2018 and analyzed the number of editing requests and research publications by segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data.
    RESULTS: The SPT processed 3931 editing requests in 2017-2018, which was a marked increase compared with prior to its establishment (P = 0.0097). The authors were generally satisfied with the quality of editing services from both in-house and external editors. Upon conducting regular quality control, overall author satisfaction with one external company gradually increased over the course of one year (P for trend = 0.086). Author satisfaction survey results revealed that overall satisfaction of editing service was most strongly correlated with how well the edits conformed to the authors' intentions (R = 0.796), and was only weakly correlated with quick turnaround time (R = 0.355). We also observed a significant increase in the trend of the number of research publications (P = 0.0007) at one year after the establishment of the SPT.
    CONCLUSION: Providing a combination of in-house and external editing services resulted in high author satisfaction and subsequent hospital-wide increases in manuscript writing and publication. Our model system may be adapted in academic hospitals to better address the editing needs of non-native English-speaking researchers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219567
  2. Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Jul 09.
    Waaijer CJF, Ommering BWC, van der Wurff LJ, van Leeuwen TN, Dekker FW, .
      INTRODUCTION: Engagement of clinicians in research is important for the integration of science and clinical practice. However, at this moment, there is a shortage of clinician-scientists. Success experiences can stimulate student interest in a research career. Conducting actual research leading to publication is a potential method to gain success experience. This study assessed whether publication as a medical student is associated with publication after graduation. We determined whether medical students in the Netherlands who are involved in research, as measured by publication in international journals before graduation: 1) are more likely to publish, 2) publish a greater number of papers, and 3) have higher citation impact scores after graduation.METHODS: We matched 2005-2008 MD graduates (with rare names, n = 4145 in total) from all eight Dutch university medical centres to their publications indexed in the Web of Science and published between 6 years before and 6 years after graduation. For sensitivity analysis we performed both automatic assignment on the whole group and manual assignment on a 10% random sample.
    RESULTS: Students who had published before graduation: 1) were 1.9 times as likely to publish, 2) published more papers, and 3) had a slightly higher citation impact after graduation.
    DISCUSSION: Medical students who conducted research leading to a publication before graduation were more likely to be scientifically active after graduation. While this is not a causal relationship per se, these results cautiously suggest that successful early involvement in research could influence the long-term scientific activity of clinicians.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Clinician-scientists; Medical students; Research in medical education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0524-3
  3. Environ Int. 2019 Jul 09. pii: S0160-4120(19)31180-8. [Epub ahead of print]131 104960
    Oberg G, Leopold A.
      In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in scientific publications dealing with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and the escalating publication rate makes it close to impossible for individual researchers to get an overview of the field. Assuring the relevance and quality of the research conducted in any research field is a crucially important task. The rapidly increasing publication rates imply that review papers will play a progressively more central role to that end. The aim of the present paper is to critically assess whether reviews dealing with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) are effective vehicles for a healthy dialogue about methodological weaknesses, uncertainties, research gaps and the future direction of the field. We carried out a tiered content-analysis of CEC review papers. Relevant papers were identified through searches in Web of Science (Clarivate), leading to the identification of 6391 original research papers of which 193 are review papers. We find that the majority of CEC reviews are written as if they are comprehensive, even though this clearly is not the case. A minority (~20%) take a critical-analytical approach to the reviewing task and identify weaknesses and research gaps. The following widespread tendencies in CEC research papers are commonly noted as concerning: to equate removal of CECs to 'decreased concentrations in the effluent'; to focus on parent substances and not concern oneself with degradation products; to focus on most commonly studied substances rather than those of most concern; to not deal with the corollary of our inability to detect or assess the risk for all substances, and to give insufficient attention to uncertainties and the unknown. Several critical-analytical reviews are among the highest cited, which suggests that they have the potential to function as effective vehicles for a healthy dialogue on these topics. On the other hand, it would appear that the concerns expressed in these reviews have a limited impact, as the same concerns are repeated over time. This might be due to a tendency among review authors to express their concerns implicitly, instead of clearly spelling them out. Our study suggests that CEC reviews presently fail to provide adequate and reliable guidance regarding the relevance and quality of research in the field. We argue that the overwhelming number of publications in combination with a lack of quality criteria for review papers are reasons to this failure: it is well documented that choices made during the reviewing process have a major impact on the outcome of a review. These choices include: search engine; the criteria used to include or exclude papers; the criteria used to assess the quality of the data generated in the research papers included; the criteria used for the choice of substances/ organisms/ technologies reported on. The lack of transparent procedures makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the quality of the findings presented or to put those findings in context. In this light, it is noteworthy that criteria for a good review paper are rarely spelled out by peer-reviewed journals or included in instructions on scientific writing. The dramatic increase in publications is a challenge for the entire research community, particularly for research fields that are expected to provide policy-relevant data. We argue that only when peer-reviewed journals start specifying quality criteria for review papers, can such papers be relied upon to provide adequate and strategic guidance on the development of CEC research. We anticipate that our findings and conclusions are valid for many other research fields.
    Keywords:  CECs; Contaminants of emerging concern; Critical analysis; ECs; ESOCs; Emerging contaminants; Emerging pollutants; Emerging substances of concern; Quality assessment; Research quality; Review papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104960
  4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 31. 5 ED000137
    Tovey D.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000137
  5. Medicina (B Aires). 2019 ;79(3): 232-234
    Kotsias BA.
      
  6. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019 Jul 11. pii: qcz036. [Epub ahead of print]
    Masri A, Samara A, Baghal M, Saeed A, Altibi A, Barakat AF, Elgendy IY.
      
    Keywords:  Altmetric score; Social media; online dissemination; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz036
  7. Perspect Biol Med. 2019 ;62(2): 189-215
    Flier JS.
      Credit for scientific discovery plays a central role in the reward structure of science. As the "currency of the realm," it powerfully influences the norms and institutional practices of the research ecosystem. Though most scientists enter the field for reasons other than desiring credit, once in the field they desire credit for their work. In addition to being a source of pleasure, credit and recognition are necessary for successful careers. The consensus among sociologists, philosophers, and economists is that pursuit of credit increases the efficiency of the scientific enterprise. Publishing results in a scholarly journal is the core approach to obtaining credit and priority, and the publishing landscape is undergoing dramatic change. As research groups get larger and more interdisciplinary, and scholarly journals proliferate, allocating credit has become more difficult. Awards and prizes further contribute to credit by recognizing prior attributions and articulating new credit attributions through their decisions. Patents can have a complex relationship to credit, and disputes over authorship and credit are common and difficult to adjudicate. Pathologic pursuit of credit adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Academic institutions assess credit in appointment and promotion decisions, and are best positioned to assume responsibility for addressing problems with the credit ecosystem. Several possible remedies are presented.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2019.0010
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jul 15. 34(27): e184
    Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD.
      The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice.
    Keywords:  Access to Information; Bibliography as Topic; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e184
  9. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jul 15. 34(27): e180
    Misra DP, Agarwal V.
      Open access (OA) publishing is a recent phenomenon in scientific publishing, enabling free access to knowledge worldwide. In the Indian context, OA to science has been facilitated by government-funded repositories of student and doctoral theses, and many Indian society journals are published with platinum OA. The proportion of OA publications from India is significant in a global context, and Indian journals are increasingly available on OA repositories such as Pubmed Central, and Directory of Open Access Journals. However, OA in India faces numerous challenges, including low-quality or predatory OA journals, and the paucity of funds to afford gold OA publication charges. There is a need to increase awareness amongst Indian academics regarding publication practices, including OA, and its potential benefits, and utilize this modality of publication whenever feasible, as in publicly-funded research, or when platinum OA is available, while avoiding falling prey to poor quality OA journals.
    Keywords:  Bibliography as Topic; Directory of Open Access Journals; Open Access Publishing; Plan S; Predatory Journals; PubMed Central; Publication Models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e180
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul 08. pii: S0895-4356(19)30456-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reynders RM, Ladu L, Di Girolamo N.
      OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence, the reporting quality, the need, and the consequences of contacting of authors by Cochrane reviewers to obtain additional information for their reviews.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study and survey on all new Cochrane intervention reviews published between 1 January 2016 and 31 January 2017.
    RESULTS: The cross-sectional study found that reviewers had contacted or had tried to contact studies to obtain additional information in 73.4 % (234/319) of reviews, but reported poorly on the methods, outcomes and consequences of this procedure. Most eligible studies were poorly reported, but few reviewers 21.2% (65/306) reported that they had contacted these studies. The survey showed that risk of bias scores, GRADE scores, the summary primary or secondary outcomes and the summary effect size of the primary outcome of the review were changed as a consequence of contacting of authors. 35 of 130 (26.9%) reviews scored opposite outcomes for the same question in the cross-sectional study compared with the survey.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings on contacting of authors by Cochrane reviewers showed relevant shortcomings in the current standards and transparency of Cochrane reviews. These shortcomings can compromise the validity and reproducibility of these reviews and affect a wide audience.
    Keywords:  Author contact; Bias; Cochrane; Missing data; Poor reporting; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.001
  11. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jun 27. pii: S0277-9536(19)30373-9. [Epub ahead of print]235 112388
    Lundine J, Bourgeault IL, Glonti K, Hutchinson E, Balabanova D.
      Academic experts share their ideas, as well as contribute to advancing health science by participating in publishing as an author, reviewer and editor. The academy shapes and is shaped by knowledge produced within it. As such, the production of scientific knowledge can be described as part of a socially constructed system. Like all socially constructed systems, scientific knowledge production is influenced by gender. This study investigated one layer of this system through an analysis of journal editors' understanding of if and how gender influences editorial practices in peer reviewed health science journals. The study involved two stages: 1) exploratory in-depth qualitative interviews with editors at health science journals; and 2) a nominal group technique (NGT) with experts working on gender in research, academia and the journal peer review process. Our findings indicate that some editors had not considered the impact of gender on their editorial work. Many described how they actively strive to be 'gender blind,' as this was seen as a means to be objective. This view fails to recognize how broader social structures operate to produce systemic inequities. None of the editors or publishers in this study were collecting gender or other social indicators as part of the article submission process. These findings suggest that there is room for editors and publishers to play a more active role in addressing structural inequities in academic publishing to ensure a diversity of knowledge and ideas are reflected.
    Keywords:  Feminist science studies; Gender inequity; Health sciences; Journalology; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112388
  12. Kardiol Pol. 2019 Jul 09.
    Przeniosło M, Przeniosło M.
      Polish cardiology began to evolve as a separate branch of internal medicine before the year 1918, and further development came in the interwar period. Until 1939, the greatest contribution to the development of cardiology as an independent clinical specialty was made by Mściwój Semerau-Siemianowski, Professor of the University of Warsaw, who continued these efforts after World War II. In 1950, on his initiative, the Section of Cardiology was created at the Polish Society of Internal Medicine. In 1954, the Section was transformed into the Polish Cardiac Society. Jerzy Jakubowski became its President. At that time, Polish cardiologists had already managed to prepare several independent publishing projects, including five volumes of the collective monograph Advances in Cardiology [Postępy Kardiologii]. The culmination of these activities was the "Polish Heart Journal" ["Kardiologia Polska"], a quarterly issued by the Polish Cardiac Society regularly since 1957. Jerzy Jakubowski became its Editor-in-Chief. The editorial office was located in Łódź.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33963/KP.14894
  13. F1000Res. 2019 ;pii: Chem Inf Sci-976. [Epub ahead of print]8
    Bajorath J.
      The Chemical Information Science Gateway (CISG) of F1000Research was originally conceptualized as a forum for high-quality publications in chemical information science (CIS) including chemoinformatics. Adding a publication venue with open access and open peer review to the CIS field was a prime motivation for the introduction of CISG, aiming to support open science in this area. Herein, the CISG concept is revisited and the development of the gateway over the past four years is reviewed. In addition, opportunities are discussed to better position CISG within the publication spectrum of F1000Research and further increase its visibility and attractiveness for scientific contributions.
    Keywords:  Chemical information science; gateway design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19764.1
  14. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019 Jul 09. pii: S1017-995X(18)30148-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Bagatur E, Yalçınkaya M.
      OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine 1) the publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses in peer-reviewed journals and (2) compare these rates with publication rates from the 20th congress (2007) published previously. The secondary objective was to determine the time lag to publication and compare this data with the data from the 20th congress.METHODS: All abstracts from the scientific programs of the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were identified and computerized PubMed searches were conducted to determine whether an abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The time lag to publication was also noted.
    RESULTS: Of the 993 presentation abstracts (302 podium and 691 poster presentations) from the 23rd congress and of the 940 presentation abstracts (310 podium and 630 poster presentations) from the 24th congress, 278 (28%) and 234 (24.9%) were followed by a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals indexed by PubMed, respectively. The rates of publication of the podium and poster presentations were 39.4% (119/302) and 23% (159/691), respectively from the 23rd and 37.7% (117/310) and 18.6% (117/630), respectively from the 24th congresses. The mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 23rd congress was 12.8 ± 18.8 (median: 13, range: -140 to 47) months and the mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 24th congress was 11.1 ± 14.42 (median: 11, range: -73 to 39) months. Fifty (50/278, 18%) abstracts from the 23rd congress (mean -11, range: [-32]-[-1], median -5 months) and 37 (37/234, 15.8%) abstracts from the 24th congress (mean -10.4, range: [-73]-[-1], median -4 months) were published as full-text articles prior to the presentation at the congress.
    CONCLUSION: The vast majority of abstracts presented at 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were not followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rates of the abstracts presented at these congresses did not improve when compared with the 20th (2007) congress.
    Keywords:  Abstract; Congress; Indexed journal; Orthopedics; Presentation; Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2019.05.006
  15. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019 Jul 04. pii: S1017-995X(19)30156-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Sener M, Davulcu CD, Tahta M, Gunal I.
      OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology and to investigate the relationship of these publications with the regulations of scientific fields made in recent years in Turkey.METHODS: The journals and publishers between the years 2000-2018 were screened and websites visited one by one on the basis of the orthopedic journals and publishers list determined as predators or possible predators. Orthopedic publications originated from Turkey was detected in these predatory journals. Article admissions, article processing charges, editorial and referee average response times were reviewed from the websites of journals. In addition, the effect of changing associate professorship application requirements and academic incentive regulation on the preference of predatory journals was examined.
    RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2018 years 1626 issues which can be reached in 282 journals were examined. 4795 articles were screened in 29 journals which have articles originated from Turkey. One hundred and six (2.21%) articles which originated from Turkey was reached in these publications. Average article processing charge was $865 ($ 0-1819). Fifty-nine of 106 (55%) articles originated from Turkey were found in only 4 journal. Journals which have articles originated from Turkey were not on the Web of Science list. The response time to the articles was between 2 and 6 weeks in these journals. After the change criteria in associate professorship in 2016, 3.32 fold increase in annual average number of publications originated from Turkey have been identified in predatory journals. After the change criteria in academic incentive regulation in 2015, 4.76 fold increase in annual average number of publications originated from Turkey have been identified in predatory journals.
    CONCLUSION: The number of articles in predatory journals is increasing all over the world. This situation also valid in the field of Orthopaedics and Traumatology in Turkey. Authors should pay attention regarding predatory journals not only article processing charges but also very short evaluation period.
    Keywords:  Journals; Orthopaedic; Predatory; Publishing; Traumatology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2019.05.003
  16. J Intern Med. 2019 Jul 08.
    Conroy M, Sellors J, Effingham M, Littlejohns TJ, Boultwood C, Gillions L, Sudlow CLM, Collins R, Allen NE.
      Ready access to health research studies is becoming more important as researchers, and their funders, seek to maximise the opportunities for scientific innovation and health improvements. Large-scale population-based prospective studies are particularly useful for multidisciplinary research into the causes, treatment and prevention of many different diseases. UK Biobank has been established as an open-access resource for public health research, with the intention of making the data as widely available as possible in an equitable and transparent manner. Access to UK Biobank's unique breadth of phenotypic and genetic data has attracted researchers worldwide from across academia and industry. As a consequence, it has enabled scientists to perform world-leading collaborative research. Moreover, open access to an already deeply characterized cohort has encouraged both public and private sector investment in further enhancements to make UK Biobank an unparalleled resource for public health research and an exemplar for the development of open access approaches for other studies.
    Keywords:  epidemiology; public health; science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12955
  17. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jun 17.
    Brown MA, Erdman MK, Munger AM, Miller AN.
      BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe?
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size.
    RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013).
    CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000849