bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒02‒02
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jan 27. pii: S0003-9993(20)30024-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Bianchini C, Cosentino C, Paci M, Baccini M.
      OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in predatory and non-predatory journals in the field of physical therapy.DATA SOURCES: From a list of 18 journals included either on Beall's list (n=9) or in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (n=9), two independent assessors extracted all the RCTs published between 2014 and 2017. When journals published more than 40 RCTs, a sample of 40 trials was randomly extracted, preserving the proportions among years. Indexing in PubMed, country of journal publication and dates of submission/acceptance were also recorded for each journal.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PEDro scale and duration of the peer review.
    RESULTS: Four hundred and ten RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score of articles published in non-Beall, DOAJ journals was higher than those published in Beall journals (5.8±1.7 vs 4.5±1.5; p <.001), with the differences increasing when the indexing in PubMed was also considered (6.5±1.5 vs 4.4±1.5; p <.001). The peer review duration was significantly longer in non-Beall than in Beall journals (145.2±92.9 vs 45.4±38.8 days; p<.001) and in journals indexed in PubMed than in non-indexed journals (136.6±100.7 vs 60.4±55.7 days; p<.001). Indexing in PubMed was the strongest independent variable associated with the PEDro score (adjusted R2 = .182), but non-inclusion on Beall's list explained an additional, albeit small portion of the PEDro score variance (cumulative adjusted R2 = .214).
    CONCLUSIONS: Potentially predatory journals publish lower-quality trials and have a shorter peer review process than non-Beall journals included in the DOAJ database.
    Keywords:  open access; peer review; periodicals; predatory publishers; randomized controlled trials
  2. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(1): e0228008
    Trilles S, Granell C, Degbelo A, Bhattacharya D.
      Scientific research results are traditionally published as articles in peer-reviewed conference proceedings or journals. These articles often use technical jargon, which precludes the general public from consuming the results achieved. New ways to communicate scientific results are thus necessary to transfer scientific insights to non-experts, and this work proposes the concept of interactive guidelines to fill this gap. A web tool, called Interactive Guidelines Tool, was developed as a proof-of-concept for the idea. It was used in the context of the GEO-C project to communicate research outputs in smart cities scenarios to the public. A comparative analysis between the Interactive Guidelines Tool and related tools helps to highlight the progress it enables beyond the current state of the art. Interactive Guidelines Tool is available as an open-source tool and can be customised/extended by any interested researcher, in the process of making scientific knowledge and insights more accessible and understandable to a broader public.
  3. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jan 27.
    Hosseini M.
      There has been an increase in the number of journal articles that are co-authored by researchers who claim to have made equal contributions. This growth has sparked discussions in the literature, especially within medical journals. To extend the debate beyond medical disciplines and support journal editors in forming an opinion, the current review collates and explores published viewpoints about so-called Equal Co-authorship (EC) practices. The Web of Science core database was used to identify publications that mention and discuss EC. Within the limited number of publications that were found on the Web of Science database, the most-cited item was used to trace other papers that discuss EC. In total, 39 papers (including articles and editorials) met the inclusion criteria. This review identifies four main themes within the sample including the growth of EC, challenges of attributing EC, guidelines and policies about EC and gender issues in the attribution of EC. Based on the survey and analysis of publications that discuss EC, this review provides recommendations regarding journal policy statements, and EC indicators. Those recommendations include: (1) journal policies should address EC; and (2) use should be made of available functionalities (CRediT, for example) to capture and indicate equal contributions.
    Keywords:  Authorship attribution; Equal co-authorship; Equal contribution; Recognition; Scientific authorship
  4. Account Res. 2020 Jan 27.
    Resnik DB, Smith E, Master Z, Shi M.
      We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,540 researchers concerning their experiences with and attitudes towards the ethics of equal contribution (EC) designations in publications. Over half the respondents (58.3%) said they had been designated as an EC at least once. Although most respondents agreed that EC designations can be a useful way of promoting collaborations (81.7%) or resolving disagreements about authorship order (63.3%), a substantial proportion of respondents (38.1%) regarded these designations as useful but ethically questionable. 31.7% of respondents said EC designations are ethically questionable because ECs are difficult to define or measure and 25.9% said they are ethically questionable because people rarely contribute equally. Most respondents (71.8%) agreed that it is unfair to name two people as ECs when they have not contributed equally and that journals (73.4%), research teams (69.5%), and research institutions (63%) should develop policies concerning EC designations. Views concerning the ethics and policies of EC designations were influenced by the race/ethnicity and position of respondents but not by gender. Researchers who had been designated as ECs were less likely to regard this practice as ethically questionable than those who had not.
    Keywords:  authorship; equal contribution; ethics; journals; policy
  5. Nature. 2020 Jan;577(7792): 602-603
    Keywords:  Agriculture; History; Policy; Publishing
  6. Indian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jan-Feb;62(1):62(1): 73-79
    Grover S, Dalton N.
      Background: Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience.Aim: This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012-2014.
    Materials and Methods: For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012-2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail.
    Results: A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1.
    Conclusion: The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years.
    Keywords:  Abstracts; conference; publication; publication rate
  7. Lancet. 2020 01 25. pii: S0140-6736(20)30152-5. [Epub ahead of print]395(10220): 256
    Horton R.
  8. J Endocrinol Invest. 2020 Jan 28.
    Mantovani A, Rinaldi E, Zusi C.
    Keywords:  Differences; Disparity; Endocrinology; Gender; Journals
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Feb;145(2): 433e-437e
    Chen K, Ha G, Schultz BD, Zhang B, Smith ML, Bradley JP, Thorne CH, Kasabian AK, Pusic AL, Tanna N.
      BACKGROUND: Women now constitute 40.5 percent of integrated plastic surgery residents; however, in 2007, women represented only 11.3 percent of the leadership positions in plastic surgery societies and journal editorial boards. The authors analyzed female representation in these societies and editorial boards over the past 10 years.METHODS: Names of board members from the major plastic surgery societies (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, The Plastic Surgery Foundation, and American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, among others) for the past 10 years and the major plastic journals (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and so on) from the past 5 years were extracted from their websites. The yearly percentage of female plastic surgery residents was obtained from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education published data. The proportions of women in society leadership, editorial boards, and residency were compared with data analyses of time series trend and linear and Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average time series modeling.
    RESULTS: Over the past 10 years, the percentage of female residents has grown steadily, from 21.84 percent to 37.31 percent. Similarly, female representation in society leadership has grown from 6.78 percent to 20.29 percent. Both growth coefficients were statistically significant and showed no statistical difference between the two. In contrast, editorial board leadership over the past 5 years showed statistically insignificant growth and showed a statistically significant difference when compared to the growth of the percentage of female residents and female representation in society leadership.
    CONCLUSION: Female representation in plastic surgery society leadership shows promising growth, whereas their representation on editorial boards showed significantly less growth, which may reflect the slower turnover on these boards.
  10. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Feb;pii: S2213-1779(20)30005-6. [Epub ahead of print]8(2): 151-152
    O'Connor CM.
  11. Nature. 2020 01;577(7792): 598
    Keywords:  Ethics; Policy; Publishing; Research management
  12. Bioimpacts. 2020 ;10(1): 5-7
    Mahmoudi M, Ameli S, Moss S.
      Academic bullying occurs when senior scientists direct abusive behavior such as verbal insults, public shaming, isolation, and threatening toward vulnerable junior colleagues such as postdocs, graduate students and lab members. We believe that one root cause of bullying behavior is the pressure felt by scientists to compete for rankings designed to measure their scientific worth. These ratings, such as the h-index, have several unintended consequences, one of which we believe is academic bullying. Under pressure to achieve higher and higher rankings, in exchange for positive evaluations, grants and recognition, senior scientists exert undue pressure on their junior staff in the form of bullying. Lab members have little or no recourse due to the lack of fair institutional protocols for investigating bullying, dependence on grant or institutional funding, fear of losing time and empirical work by changing labs, and vulnerability to visa cancellation threats among international students. We call for institutions to reconsider their dependence on these over-simplified surrogates for real scientific progress and to provide fair and just protocols that will protect targets of academic bullying from emotional and financial distress.
    Keywords:  Academic bullying; H-index; Nobel Prize
  13. World J Hepatol. 2020 Jan 27. 12(1): 1-5
    Ma RY.
      The first editorial board meeting of the World Journal of Hepatology (WJH) was held on November 8, 2019 at the Side Bar Grille, Sheraton Boston Hotel, Boston, MA, United States. Ruo-Yu Ma, Director of Editorial Office, on behalf of the Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG), organized the meeting with the great help of Professor Ke-Qin Hu, Journal Editor-in-Chief. There were six editorial board members, including two Editors-in-Chief and one administrative director of the editorial office at the meeting, discussing future strategies of the journal's development. The editorial board provided BPG a number of suggestions in regard to the business plan and quality control of the WJH. Regarding the business aspect, the editorial board suggested that BPG should advertise the WJH at the international Hepatology and Gastroenterology conferences and promote the WJH via social media. On the scientific aspect, the editorial board suggested that the assessment systems for managing the reviewers and the editorial board members are necessary, and that the BPG should make efforts to attract more high-quality manuscript submissions. An additional comment was to continue to foster a scientific culture for the journal. In conclusion, it was noted that these new ideas expressed during the meeting will bring the WJH to the next level. In the future, the BPG and the editorial board will increase communication and collaboration in order to further the development of the WJH.
    Keywords:  Baishideng Publishing Group; Business plan; Editorial board meeting; Journal development; Quality control; World Journal of Hepatology