bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒12‒15
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Med J Aust. 2019 Dec;211(11): 511-513
    Han HC, Koshy AN, Lin T, Yudi M, Clark D, Teh AW, Farouque O.
      OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific factors predict the development of ManuScript Rejection sYndrome (MiSeRY) in academic physicians.DESIGN: Prospective pilot study; participants self-administered a questionnaire about full manuscript submissions (as first or senior author) rejected at least once during the past 5 years.
    SETTING: Single centre (tertiary institution).
    PARTICIPANTS: Eight academic physician-authors.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of grief. MiSeRY was pre-specified as prolonged grief (grief duration longer than the population median).
    RESULTS: Eight participants provided data on 32 manuscripts with a total of 93 rejections (median, two rejections per manuscript; interquartile range [IQR], 1-3 rejections per manuscript). Median age at rejection was 37 years (IQR, 33-45 years); 86% of 80 rejections involved male authors (86%), 56 of the authors providing data about these rejections were first authors (60%). The median journal impact factor was 5.9 (IQR, 5.2-17). In 48 cases of rejection (52%), pre-submission expectations of success had been high, and in 54 cases (58%) the manuscripts had been sent for external review. Median grief duration was 3 hours (IQR, 1-24 h). Multivariate analysis indicated that higher pre-submission expectation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.0; 95% CI, 1.5-18), first author status (aOR, 9.5; 95% CI, 1.1-77), and external review (aOR, 19.0; 95% CI 2.9-126) were independent predictors of MiSeRY.
    CONCLUSIONS: To help put authors out of their MiSeRY, journal editors could be more selective in the manuscripts they send for external review. Tempering pre-submission expectations and mastering the Coping and reLaxing Mechanisms (CaLM) of senior colleagues are important considerations for junior researchers.
    Keywords:  Publishing
  2. Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Dec 09.
    Bazi T.
      A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation.
    Keywords:  Double-blind; International; Peer review; Publication; Research; Single-blind
  3. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Dec;3(12): 1237
  4. Cell. 2019 Dec 12. pii: S0092-8674(19)31286-3. [Epub ahead of print]179(7): 1441-1445
    Krummel M, Blish C, Kuhns M, Cadwell K, Oberst A, Goldrath A, Ansel KM, Chi H, O'Connell R, Wherry EJ, Pepper M, .
      Despite being a staple of our science, the process of pre-publication peer review has few agreed-upon standards defining its goals or ideal execution. As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format and associated specific standards for the process as we think it should be practiced. We propose that we apply, debate, and ultimately extend these to improve the transparency of our criticism and the speed with which quality data and ideas become public.
  5. F1000Res. 2019 ;8 1682
    Blanco D, Hren D, Kirkham JJ, Cobo E, Schroter S.
      Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors' perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.
    Keywords:  Barriers; Completeness of reporting; Facilitators; Journal policies; Quality of reporting; Reporting guidelines; Survey
  6. J Cyst Fibros. 2019 Nov;pii: S1569-1993(19)30939-7. [Epub ahead of print]18(6): 747-749
    Bell SC, Castellani C, Flume PA.
  7. F1000Res. 2019 ;8 1563
    McGrath N.
      Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.
    Keywords:  Bangladesh; China; Ghana; Global South; NGOs; Nepal; Open Access; Pakistan; Swaziland; funders; global development; low middle income country; publishers
  8. eNeuro. 2019 Nov/Dec;6(6):pii: ENEURO.reviewers-2.2019. [Epub ahead of print]6(6):
  9. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Dec 11. 21(12): e16368
    deBronkart D.
      The slogan "Gimme My Damn Data" has become a hallmark of a patient movement whose goal is to gain access to data in their medical records. Its first conference appearance was ten years ago, in September 2009. In the decade since there have been enormous changes in both the technology and sociology of medicine as well as in their synthesis. As the patient movement has made strides, it has been met with opposition and obstacles. It has also become clear that the availability of Open Access information is just as empowering (or disabling) as access to electronic medical records and device data. Knowledge truly is power, and to withhold knowledge is to disempower patients. This essay lays out many examples of how this shows up as we strive for the best future of care.
    Keywords:  EHRs; EMRs; Patient-clinician relationship; empowerment; open access; participatory medicine; patient empowerment; patient engagement; patient portals
  10. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Dec 04. pii: S0002-9394(19)30592-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pepose JS, Foulks GN, Nelson JD, Erickson S, Lemp MA.
      PURPOSE: To identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature.DESIGN: Perspective METHODS: Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective.
    RESULTS: While recommendations for the design, conduct, and assessment of quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post publication correspondence and failure to utilize ≥1 alternative search strategy.
    CONCLUSIONS: Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and their perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.
  11. Nature. 2019 Dec;576(7786): 182
    Keywords:  Conferences and meetings; Ethics; Events; Publishing
  12. Br J Biomed Sci. 2019 Dec 10. 1-6
    Blann A.
      In 2019 the British Journal of Biomedical Science published 40 articles in the various disciplines that comprise biomedical science. These were one review, 22 original articles and 17 'In Brief' short reports. Of those citing original data, the majority were in cellular pathology (14 papers), clinical chemistry (9 papers), and microbiology (6 papers: 4 in bacteriology and 2 in virology). There were 3 papers in haematology and 2 in andrology, whilst 5 papers crossed traditional discipline boundaries (such as the molecular genetics of IL6, liver function tests, and hepatocellular carcinoma). Over two-thirds of papers used techniques in molecular genetics. The present report will summarise key aspects of these publications that are of greatest relevance to laboratory scientists.
    Keywords:  Biomedical science; Cellular pathology; Clinical chemistry; Cytopathology; Haematology; Immunology; Microbiology; Transfusion science; Virology
  13. Medicina (B Aires). 2019 ;79(6): 524
    Malbrán A.