bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒11‒03
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Oct 31.
    Grey A, Avenell A, Gamble G, Bolland M.
      Authorship transgressions, duplicate data reporting and reporting/data errors compromise the integrity of biomedical publications. Using a standardized template, we raised concerns with journals about each of these characteristics in 33 pairs of publications originating from 15 preclinical (animal) trials reported by a group of researchers. The outcomes of interest were journal responses, including time to acknowledgement of concerns, time to decision, content of decision letter, and disposition of publications at 1 year. Authorship transgressions affected 27/36 (75%) publications. The median proportion of duplicate data within pairs of publications was 45% (interquartile range 29-57). Data/reporting discrepancies [median 3 (1-5)] were present in 28/33 (85%) pairs. Journals acknowledged receipt of concerns for 53% and 94% of publications by 1 month and 9 months, respectively. After 1 year, journals had communicated decisions for 16/36 (44%) publications. None of the decision letters specifically addressed each of the concerns raised. Decisions were no action, correction and retraction for 9, 3 and 4 publications, respectively: the amounts of duplicate data reporting and data/reporting discrepancies were similar irrespective of journal decision. Authorship transgressions affected 6/9 (67%) publications for which no action was decided. Journal responses to concerns about duplicate publication, authorship transgressions, and data/reporting discrepancies were slow, opaque and inconsistent.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Duplicate publication; Journals; Research integrity; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00152-w
  2. Elife. 2019 Oct 31. pii: e48425. [Epub ahead of print]8
    McDowell GS, Knutsen JD, Graham JM, Oelker SK, Lijek RS.
      Many early-career researchers are involved in the peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals, typically under the guidance of or jointly with their advisor, but most of the evidence about this activity is anecdotal. Here we report the results of a literature review and a survey of researchers, with an emphasis on co-reviewing and 'ghostwriting'. The literature review identified 36 articles that addressed the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review, most of them about early-career researchers and their advisors co-reviewing manuscripts for the purposes of training: none of them addressed the topic of ghostwriting in detail. About three quarters of the respondents to the survey had co-reviewed a manuscript. Most respondents believe co-reviewing to be a beneficial (95%) and ethical (73%) form of training in peer review. About half of the respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite 81% responding that ghostwriting is unethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable. Peer review would benefit from changes in both journal policies and lab practices that encourage mentored co-review and discourage ghostwriting.
    Keywords:  early career researcher; ghostwriting; human; infectious disease; microbiology; peer review training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425
  3. Wilderness Environ Med. 2019 Oct 24. pii: S1080-6032(19)30170-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pollock NW.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2019.09.005
  4. Dev Biol. 2019 Oct 25. pii: S0012-1606(19)30532-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Crotty D.
      As the academic career path has become less feasible for most researchers, scholarly publishing offers a way to put scientific training to use, and to build a career while remaining in the world of research. Here I detail the path that my career took and offer advice for those interested in exploring academic publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2019.10.019
  5. PLoS Med. 2019 Oct;16(10): e1002970
    .
      On our 15th anniversary, the PLOS Medicine editors discuss progress in open access, medical publishing and the journal's mission over the years.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002970
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 31. 21(10): e16390
    Torous J.
      This viewpoint celebrates the accomplishments of the Journal of Medical and Internet Research on its twentieth anniversary and reviews accomplishments around research publications, journal innovation, and supporting people.
    Keywords:  JMIR; digital health; digital medicine; eHealth; knowledge dissemination; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/16390
  7. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2019 Aug;20(3): 111-112
    Cohen SS.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154419878328
  8. World Neurosurg. 2019 Nov;pii: S1878-8750(19)32238-7. [Epub ahead of print]131 284
    Gilligan JT, Gologorsky Y.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.083
  9. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019 Jul;6(2): 101-103
    Villar RR.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz034
  10. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7780): 599
    Bretag T.
      
    Keywords:  Education; Ethics; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03265-1
  11. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019 Sep;64(5): 523-525
    Likis FE.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13056
  12. J Nurs Educ. 2019 Nov 01. 58(11): 627-631
    Ashton KS.
      BACKGROUND: All nurses, not just nurse authors, must be aware of the problems and concerns of predatory publishing practices. This is an important topic for nurse educators.METHOD: Nurse educators must teach nursing students and nurses about the differences between reputable nursing journals and those produced by predatory publishers. Although there are several differences between reputable and predatory nursing journals, the lack of adequate peer review is an important problem. An active teaching strategy is provided that nurse educators may use to facilitate learning about reputable and predatory nursing journals.
    RESULTS: Nursing students and nurses will be able to assess a journal for features that suggest the publication is reputable or one that may be produced by a predatory publisher.
    CONCLUSION: Nurse educators should teach nursing students and nurses about predatory publishing practices so they can begin to use appropriate discretion when searching for evidence that informs patient care. [J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(11):627-631.].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20191021-03
  13. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 31. 21(10): e16172
    Leung R.
      The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) has attained remarkable achievements in the past twenty years. By depth, JMIR has published the most impactful research in medical informatics and is top ranked in the field. By width, JMIR has spun off to about thirty sister journals to cover topics such as serious games, mobile health, public health, surveillance, and other medical areas. With ever-increasing data and research findings, academic publishers need to be competitive to win readers' attention. While JMIR is well-positioned in the field, the journal will need more creative strategies to increase its attention base and maintain its leading position. Viable strategies include the creation of online collaborative spaces, the engagement of more diverse audience from less traditional channels, and partnerships with other publishers and academic institutes. Doing so could also enable JMIR researchers to turn research insights into practical strategies to improve personal health and medical services.
    Keywords:  JMIR; digital health; impact; knowledge translation; medical informatics; peer-to-peer community; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/16172
  14. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019 Oct;10(5): 1143-1145
    von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJS, Anker SD.
      This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) and its two daughter journals JCSM Rapid Communication and JCSM Clinical Reports. We request of all author sending to the journal a paper for consideration that at the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: all authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in JCSM as provided; each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication; no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; all authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; all original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; all relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editors of JCSM, JCSM Rapid Communication, and JCSM Clinical Reports, respectively, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.
    Keywords:  Ethical guidelines; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12501
  15. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019 Oct-Dec;4(4):4(4): 551-558
    Tegbaru D, Braverman L, Zietman AL, Yom SS, Lee WR, Miller RC, Jackson IL, McNutt T, Dekker A.
      Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are important characteristics in scientific publishing. Although many researchers embrace these characteristics, data sharing has yet to become common practice. Nevertheless, data sharing is becoming an increasingly important topic among societies, publishers, researchers, patient advocates, and funders, especially as it pertains to data from clinical trials. In response, ASTRO developed a data policy and guide to best practices for authors submitting to its journals. ASTRO's data sharing policy is that authors should indicate, in data availability statements, if the data are being shared and if so, how the data may be accessed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.08.002
  16. ESC Heart Fail. 2019 Oct;6(5): 903-908
    Anker SD, von Haehling S, Papp Z.
      In 2014, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) founded the first open access journal focusing on heart failure, called ESC Heart Failure (ESC-HF). In the first 5 years, in ESC-HF we published more than 450 articles. Through ESC-HF, the HFA gives room for heart failure research output from around the world. A transfer process from the European Journal of Heart Failure to ESC-HF has also been installed. As a consequence, in 2018 ESC-HF received 289 submissions, and published 148 items (acceptance rate 51%). The journal is listed in Scopus since 2014 and on the PubMed website since 2015. In 2019, we received our first impact factor from ISI Web of Knowledge / Thomson-Reuters, which is 3.407 for 2018. This report reviews which papers get best cited. Not surprisingly, many of the best cited papers are reviews and facts & numbers mini reviews, but original research is also well cited.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12540