bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒10‒06
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Oct-Dec;13(4):13(4): 352-355
    Sharma H, Verma S.
      Today in publish or perish era, where manuscripts and research with successfully proven hypothesis or positive results are given more importance by journals, editors, funders, and institutions. The publication of researches with negative or null results is on the verge of extinction, thus creating an intentional bias known as publication bias. This review aims to discuss the consequence of the undermined importance of negative results and problems associated with it and will elaborate the importance of reporting negative results. Under-reporting of negative results not only wastes other researchers time, money, and manpower on which their researchers will be based but also introduces bias in meta-analysis leading to distortion of the scientific literature and misleads researchers, doctors, and policymakers in their decision-making. Many such important studies with negative results remain unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community for understanding their values. A large number of human studies with huge risk to life's are carried out with the assurance that the proposed study will be performed with the aim to benefit, and results will be dissipated to everyone concerned, non-publication of such studies with negative results will not only be morally wrong but will also have ethical obligations to deal with. Therefore, all journals and their editor along with researchers and stakeholders need to be generous in giving importance to disseminating negative and positive findings alike.
    Keywords:  Editorial policies; peer review; publication bias; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_124_19
  2. Scientometrics. 2019 ;121(1): 555-594
    Feliciani T, Luo J, Ma L, Lucas P, Squazzoni F, Marušić A, Shankar K.
      Peer review is a process used in the selection of manuscripts for journal publication and proposals for research grant funding. Though widely used, peer review is not without flaws and critics. Performing large-scale experiments to evaluate and test correctives and alternatives is difficult, if not impossible. Thus, many researchers have turned to simulation studies to overcome these difficulties. In the last 10 years this field of research has grown significantly but with only limited attempts to integrate disparate models or build on previous work. Thus, the resulting body of literature consists of a large variety of models, hinging on incompatible assumptions, which have not been compared, and whose predictions have rarely been empirically tested. This scoping review is an attempt to understand the current state of simulation studies of peer review. Based on 46 articles identified through literature searching, we develop a proposed taxonomy of model features that include model type (e.g. formal models vs. ABMs or other) and the type of modeled peer review system (e.g. peer review in grants vs. in journals or other). We classify the models by their features (including some core assumptions) to help distinguish between the modeling approaches. Finally, we summarize the models' findings around six general themes: decision-making, matching submissions/reviewers, editorial strategies; reviewer behaviors, comparisons of alternative peer review systems, and the identification and addressing of biases. We conclude with some open challenges and promising avenues for future modeling work.
    Keywords:  Agent-based modeling; Journal editing; Peer review; Research funding; Simulation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03205-w
  3. Circulation. 2019 Oct;140(14): 1131-1133
    Trethewey SP.
      
    Keywords:  bias; communication; health literacy; peer review; public health; publication bias; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.041719
  4. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Oct 02. 101(19): e101
    Wolf JM, Sandell LJ, Leopold SS, Dodson KL.
      Orthopaedic surgery has a rich history of publication of the science that supports the practice of our specialty, which dates from 1887. Orthopaedic publishing has evolved since that time, expanding from print to online access, with increasing variation in publication models, including open-access journals and article repositories, and methods of information delivery that include video, data archives, and commentary. This symposium provides an overview of the changes and challenges in the publication of orthopaedic science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01260
  5. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019 Oct;pii: 1816. [Epub ahead of print]10(4): 157-158
    Habibzadeh F.
      
    Keywords:  Journalism; Open access; Plan S
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2019.1816
  6. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Sep 26. pii: S0003-9993(19)31116-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Dijkers MPJM.
      OBJECTIVE: To describe the authors who have contributed papers to the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (APM&R) over the 100 years of its existence.DESIGN: Extraction of relevant information from a sample of APM&R papers; SETTING: N/A; PARTICIPANTS: 4933 authors contributing to 1787 articles; MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: number of authors, their gender, professional education and country of residence RESULTS: The number of authors per article increased from 1.1 average in 1922 to 5.8 in 2017. The percentage women among authors grew from under 5% to about 40%. In 1922 the majority of authors had an MD degree (85%); this declined to less than 30% by 2017, while the percentage of authors with a PhD grew from about 10% to about 30%. Contributors with a Bachelors degree initially were about 1%, grew to 13%, and then declined again. While over 90% of authors were from the United States in APM&R's early years, this percentage went into a steep decline beginning in about 1997, and now is around 35% CONCLUSIONS: The APM&R has seen major transformations in the nature of its contributors over a century of publication; many of these parallel the changes seen in other areas of health care and medical science, but some characteristics and shifts (especially in gender and level of training of its authors) appear unique.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; International cooperation; Publishing; Rehabilitation; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.08.484
  7. J Biomed Opt. 2019 Oct;24(10): 1-2
    Pogue B.
      <p>As of October 2019, the <italic>Journal of Biomedical Optics</italic> (JBO) encourages authors to use structured abstracts in their manuscript submissions. JBO's Editor-in-Chief Brian Pogue explains the transition to structured abstracts and proposes a timeline for the changeover.</p>.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.24.10.100101