bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒10‒27
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Behav Res Ther. 2019 Sep 12. pii: S0005-7967(19)30165-2. [Epub ahead of print]123 103479
    Cristea IA, Naudet F.
      A seminal Lancet series focused on increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research, providing a transferrable template to diagnose problems in research. Our goal was to document how some of these sources of waste apply to mental health and particularly psychological treatments research. We synthesize and critically evaluate empirical findings in relation to four major sources: i) defining research priorities; ii) research design, methods and analysis; iii) accessibility of research information; iv) accuracy and usability of research reports. We demonstrate that each source of waste considered is well-represented and amply documented within this field. We describe hype and insufficient consideration of what is known in defining research priorities, persistent risk of bias, particularly due to selective outcome reporting, for psychotherapy trials across mental disorders, intellectual and financial biases, direct and indirect evidence of publication bias, largely inexistent adoption of data sharing, issues of multiplicity and fragmentation of data and findings, and insufficient adoption of reporting guidelines. We expand on a few general solutions, including supporting meta-research, properly testing interventions to increase research quality, placing open science at the center of psychological treatment research and remaining vigilant particularly regarding the strains of research currently prioritized, such as experimental psychopathology.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Open science; Psychological treatment; Psychotherapy; Publication bias; Reproducibility; Research waste; Risk of bias; Transparency; meta-Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103479
  2. Psychosomatics. 2019 Sep 09. pii: S0033-3182(19)30188-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Cromwell JC, Daunis DJ, Stern TA.
      BACKGROUND: Oral presentations at academic conferences typically describe recent or ongoing research projects or provide literature reviews. However, conversion of these presentations into full-length journal articles is not routine.OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the frequency with which oral presentations at the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry's annual meetings from 2012 to 2018 were turned into peer-reviewed publications and review the factors that affected publication of them.
    METHODS: Conference presentation titles and authors from the 2012-2018 Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Annual Meetings were searched using PubMed to find corresponding published reports by the presenters. Data were organized in an Excel spreadsheet, and the time to publication, the journals in which they were published, and general content areas were recorded and analyzed.
    RESULTS: Of the 287 oral presentations delivered during the study period, 47% were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Articles were published in 72 different journals; the journals that published the most articles were Psychosomatics, General Hospital Psychiatry, Psycho-oncology, Academic Psychiatry, and the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The most common subspecialty topics of the published articles were neuropsychiatry, psycho-oncology, surgery and transplantation, and delirium. The mean time to publication after presentation was 1 year.
    CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the rate at which presentations are converted into peer-reviewed publications can be used to enhance the academic success of presenters, and strategies to enhance the rate of publication (e.g., by coaching on scientific writing or by selecting oral presentations with the highest publication potential) can be established.
    Keywords:  consultation-liaison psychiatry; education; medical writing; publication; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2019.08.010
  3. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2019 Oct 03. 45(11): 252-256
    Huston P, Edge VL, Bernier E.
      Open Data is part of a broad global movement that is not only advancing science and scientific communication but also transforming modern society and how decisions are made. What began with a call for Open Science and the rise of online journals has extended to Open Data, based on the premise that if reports on data are open, then the generated or supporting data should be open as well. There have been a number of advances in Open Data over the last decade, spearheaded largely by governments. A real benefit of Open Data is not simply that single databases can be used more widely; it is that these data can also be leveraged, shared and combined with other data. Open Data facilitates scientific collaboration, enriches research and advances analytical capacity to inform decisions. In the human and environmental health realms, for example, the ability to access and combine diverse data can advance early signal detection, improve analysis and evaluation, inform program and policy development, increase capacity for public participation, enable transparency and improve accountability. However, challenges remain. Enormous resources are needed to make the technological shift to open and interoperable databases accessible with common protocols and terminology. Amongst data generators and users, this shift also involves a cultural change: from regarding databases as restricted intellectual property, to considering data as a common good. There is a need to address legal and ethical considerations in making this shift. Finally, along with efforts to modify infrastructure and address the cultural, legal and ethical issues, it is important to share the information equitably and effectively. While there is great potential of the open, timely, equitable and straightforward sharing of data, fully realizing the myriad of benefits of Open Data will depend on how effectively these challenges are addressed.
    Keywords:  Open Data; Open Science; Open access; big data; public health science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14745/ccdr.v45i10a01
  4. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 02. 2(10): e1913682
    Thomas EG, Jayabalasingham B, Collins T, Geertzen J, Bui C, Dominici F.
      Importance: In peer-reviewed medical journals, authoring an invited commentary on an original article is a recognition of expertise. It has been documented that women author fewer invited publications than men do. However, it is unknown whether this disparity is due to gender differences in characteristics that are associated with invitations, such as field of expertise, seniority, and scientific output.Objective: To estimate the odds ratio (OR) of authoring an invited commentary for women compared with men who had similar expertise, seniority, and publication metrics.
    Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched case-control study included all medical invited commentaries published from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, in English-language medical journals and multidisciplinary journals. Invited commentaries were defined as publications that cite another publication within the same journal volume and issue. Bibliometric data were obtained from Scopus. Cases were defined as corresponding authors of invited commentaries in a given journal during the study period. Controls were matched to cases based on scientific expertise by calculating a similarity index for abstracts published during the same period using natural language processing. Data analyses were conducted from March 13, 2019, through May 3, 2019.
    Exposure: Corresponding or sole author gender was predicted from author first name and country of origin using genderize.io.
    Main Outcomes and Measures: The OR for gender was estimated after adjusting for field of expertise, publication output, citation impact, and years active (ie, years since first publication), with an interaction between gender and years active.
    Results: The final data set included 43 235 cases across 2549 journals; there were 34 047 unique intraciting commentary authors, among whom 9072 (26.6%) were women. For researchers who had been active for the median of 19 years, the odds of invited commentary authorship were 21% lower for women (OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]; P < .001) compared with men who had similar scientific expertise, number of publications, and citation impact. For every decile increase in years active, the OR decreased by a factor of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001).
    Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, women had lower odds of authoring invited commentaries than their male peers. This disparity was larger for senior researchers. Journal editors could use natural language processing of published research to widen and diversify the pool of experts considered for commentary invitations.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13682
  5. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7779): 454
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Institutions; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03166-3
  6. BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 21. 9(10): e032701
    Schroter S, Price A, Malički M, Richards T, Clarke M.
      OBJECTIVE: Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups.DESIGN: Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015.
    RESULTS: Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination.
    CONCLUSION: Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.
    Keywords:  dissemination; participants; patients and the public; research results
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032701
  7. Rev Bras Enferm. 2019 ;pii: S0034-71672019000601723. [Epub ahead of print]72(6): 1723-1729
    Ribeiro RP, Aroni P.
      OBJECTIVE: to analyze scientific evidence available in health literature on ethics, standardization and biometric indicators.METHOD: an integrative review carried out in August 2016, on the databases: National Library of Medicine, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Latin-American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences), and on the library Scientific Electronic Library Online. The review included primary articles on: ethics, standardization and biometric indicators, in Portuguese, English, or Spanish; and excluded studies that were not found as full texts, as well as opinions, commentary, reviews, theses, and dissertations. For the evaluation of the articles, it was used evidence levels from one to five.
    RESULTS: eight articles were included, with scientific evidence levels 4 and 5: scientific productivism, production evaluation systems, internationalization, impact factor, classification of journals, and adequate and inadequate practices for publication.
    CONCLUSION: it was verified the need for publications with higher evidence levels so that Brazilian journals can follow international standards dealing with research ethics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0283
  8. Perspect Clin Res. 2019 Oct-Dec;10(4):10(4): 168-171
    Shaikh AM, Mehta MM, Chawan VV.
      Objective: To evaluate and compare the reporting of consolidated standard of reporting trial (CONSORT) flow diagrams in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in a national and international pharmacology journal.Methods: RCTs in an international pharmacology journal, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (EJCP), and a national journal, Indian Journal of Pharmacology (IJP), published from January 2014 to July 2016 were evaluated for reporting and completeness of CONSORT flow diagrams. A total of 138 articles (EJCP = 90; IJP = 48) were analyzed and compared.
    Results: Of 138 RCTs analyzed, 90 were from EJCP and 48 were from IJP. 76.6% (69/90) articles from EJCP and 37.5% (18/48) articles from IJP had reported the CONSORT flow diagram. Of these, 95.5% (66/69) had assessed for eligibility in EJCP and 88.8% (16/18) had reported the same in IJP. The number of participants excluded was reported in 86.9% (60/69) flow diagrams in EJCP and 83.3% (15/18) in IJP. 82.6% (57/69) flow diagrams in EJCP and 77.7% (14/18) in IJP had mentioned the details of randomization. Allocation of intervention was reported in 91.3% (63/69) flow diagrams in EJCP and 88.8% (16/18) in IJP. 60.8% (42/69) flow diagrams in EJCP and 44.4% (08/18) in IJP had mentioned the details of follow-up of participants. 95.5% (66/69) flow diagrams in EJCP and 94.4% (17/18) in IJP had mentioned details about analysis.
    Conclusion: In spite of both the journals, IJP and EJCP endorsing the CONSORT statement, a significant difference in the reporting of CONSORT flow diagrams in RCTs can be noted. The quality of reporting can be improved by stringent publication guidelines by the editors.
    Keywords:  EJCP; IJP; Thomas reuter impact factor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_73_18
  9. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7779): 486
    Miccoli P, Rumiati RI.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03206-y
  10. Commun Biol. 2019 ;2 377
      Our editorial model is a collaborative one; the in-house professional team of editors works together with external editors in selecting the papers we publish. Here we discuss how this editorial model is set up and share the thoughts of some of our board members.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0632-y
  11. Dent J (Basel). 2019 Oct 24. pii: E103. [Epub ahead of print]7(4):
    Patini R, Staderini E, Camodeca A, Guglielmi F, Gallenzi P.
      Background: The effects of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and their impact on future research in pediatric dentistry has not been clearly evaluated yet. Aim. To assess the relevance and role of case reports in pediatric dentistry. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108621) of all case reports published between 2011 and 2012 in the three major pediatric dentistry journals was performed manually. Data regarding citations of each report were acquired from the Institute for Scientific Information database available online. The authors analyzed information regarding citations (number, percentage, and mean) received by each case report and considered their relation with the 2013 journal impact factor. Results: Case reports accounted for almost sixteen per cent of all articles published between 2011 and 2012. The citation rate of case reports was generally low and the highest mean citation was 0.5. This review revealed that 6 (9.52%) case reports had at least 5 citations and that the majority of the citing articles were also case reports (27.78%) or narrative reviews (25%). Conclusions: The publication of case reports affected the journal impact factor in a negative way, this influence is closely related to the percentage of the published case reports. Case reports about innovative topics, describing rare diseases, syndromes, and pathologies were more frequently cited.
    Keywords:  case reports; evidence-based dentistry; journal impact factor; pediatric dentistry; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7040103
  12. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7779): 453
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Culture; Media; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03167-2
  13. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7779): 476-477
    Krause K.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Culture; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03083-5