bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒03‒01
thirty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Biosci Trends. 2020 Feb 25.
    Song P, Karako T.
      Rapidly sharing scientific information is an effective way to reduce public panic about COVID-19, and doing so is the key to providing real-time guidance to epidemiologists working to contain the outbreak, clinicians managing patients, and modelers helping to understand future developments and the possible effectiveness of various interventions. This issue has rapidly reviewed and published articles describing COVID-19, including the drug treatment options for SARS-CoV-2, its clinical characteristics, and therapies involving a combination of Chinese and Western medicine, the efficacy of chloroquine phosphate in the treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia according to clinical studies, and reflections on the system of reserve medical supplies for public health emergencies. As an academic journal, we will continue to quickly and transparently share data with frontline healthcare workers who need to know the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19.
    Keywords:  2019-nCoV; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; sharing data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2020.01056
  2. Learn Publ. 2020 Jan;33(1): 14-27
    Wise A, Estelle L.
      Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA. This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S. We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project. We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream. We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit. Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.
    Keywords:  Plan S; learned society publisher; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1272
  3. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7696): 293-294
    Maxmen A.
      
    Keywords:  Biotechnology; Computational biology and bioinformatics; Health care; Personalized medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02641-7
  4. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7694): 6
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02563-4
  5. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7698): 691
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03804-2
  6. Nature. 2018 Apr;556(7699): 5
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04024-4
  7. Radiol Technol. 2020 Mar;91(4): 333-341
    Clark KR, Jackowski MB.
      PURPOSE: To explore medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals' perceptions of publishing in academic journals.METHODS: Using a descriptive survey approach, a random sample of American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) members was invited to share their experiences with publishing, including motivating factors, perceived challenges, and support measures to benefit new writers. Percentages and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
    RESULTS: There were 261 completed responses analyzed for this study. The majority (141, 54%) of the participants thought it was very important to publish in academic journals; however, only 26 (10%) of the participants indicated that they had published an article in an academic journal. Of the remaining 235 participants, 42 (17.9%) stated that they were interested in publishing an article in an academic journal.
    DISCUSSION: Participants who had publishing experience were motivated by personal satisfaction and gratification, and participants who expressed an interest in publishing indicated they would be motivated to do so by having an improved understanding of the publication process. Both groups indicated that lacking the time to write was the greatest perceived barrier to publishing. In addition, participants who had published thought writing with an experienced author would be most beneficial to new authors, while participants who were interested in publishing thought attending a technical writing workshop would be most beneficial to new writers.
    CONCLUSION: To increase the number of published articles in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession, organizations like the ASRT should consider establishing or increasing programs that support medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in their writing and publishing endeavors.
    Keywords:  challenges; medical imaging and radiation therapy profession; motivating factors; perceptions and experiences; publishing; support measures
  8. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2020 Feb 27. pii: /j/prilozi.ahead-of-print/prilozi-2020-0015/prilozi-2020-0015.xml. [Epub ahead of print]
    Donev D.
      AIM: To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications.METHODS: An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author.
    RESULTS: Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual scientists' publication records for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved.
    CONCLUSION: It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.
    Keywords:  authorship; contributorship; responsible conduct of research; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2478/prilozi-2020-0015
  9. Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7796): 489-490
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00530-6
  10. Nature. 2018 Apr;556(7699): 14-15
    Schiermeier Q.
      
    Keywords:  Law; Media; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03837-7
  11. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7695): 141-142
      
    Keywords:  Climate sciences; Communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02740-5
  12. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7694): 129-130
    Gewin V.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02404-4
  13. Magn Reson Chem. 2020 Feb 28.
    Trevorrow P, Martin GE.
      This non-scientific tutorial offers best practice for authors publishing research articles in Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry (MRC). It offers authors essential insights into; writing eye-catching article titles, author/co-author names and hierarchy, IMRaD and IRDaM article structures, referencing and the composition of abstracts, introductions, experimental, results and discussion, and conclusions together with the all-important covering letter. This arsenal of insights aims to provide tools for authors to maximize the chance of success for their research articles.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrc.5012
  14. Res Nurs Health. 2020 Apr;43(2): 141-142
    Lake ET.
      
    Keywords:  peer review; publishing; writing for publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22016
  15. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7695): 142
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02741-4
  16. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7696): 311
    McDannell KT.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02965-4
  17. Regen Med. 2020 Feb 27.
    Coppens DG, Gardarsdottir H, van den Bogert CA, De Bruin ML, Leufkens HG, Hoekman J.
      Aim: We investigated publication rates and reported results for gene- and cell-based therapy trials. Materials & methods: In a cohort of Institutional Review Board (IRB)-authorized trials during 2007-2017 in the Netherlands (n = 105), we examine publication rates and reported results in scientific papers and conference abstracts as well as associations with the occurrence of trial characteristics. Results: The publication rate for scientific papers was 27% and 17% for conference abstracts (median survival time: 1050 days). Academic hospitals published more in scientific papers whereas private sponsors published more in conference abstracts. Manufacturing protocols were underreported compared with clinical outcomes. Most publications reported positive results (78%). Conclusion: Publication rates are currently suboptimal indicating a need for enhanced knowledge sharing to stimulate gene- and cell-based therapy development.
    Keywords:  academic research; clinical trial cohort; clinical trial transparency; commercial development; conference abstract; drug regulatory science; gene- and cell-based therapies; publication bias; scientific publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2019-0066
  18. F1000Res. 2019 ;8 1852
    Stankovic N, Nolan JP, Andersen LW.
      Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.
    Keywords:  Academic; degree; high-impact; impact factor; journals; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21096.2
  19. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7695): 165
    Shen YA, Shoda Y, Fine I.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02833-1
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Jan;8(1): e2617
    Rodriguez-Unda NA, Webster ND, Verheyden CN.
      Plastic surgery is an attractive specialty to medical students. Residency training programs have the luxury of selecting their trainees from the "cream of the crop" from United States medical schools. Because of the steep competition for PGY-1 integrated program positions, the temptation exists for applicants to falsify parts of their applications, particularly those parts that are difficult to verify.Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Integrated Plastic Surgery applications from the years (2010-2013) was done. Two reviewers manually and independently handsearched each of the articles in the databases (Medline, Scopus, Clinical trials, Google scholar) additionally, a specialized medical librarian corroborated. A ghost article was defined as the inability to find the listed applicant in the authorship list of the claimed article/abstract/chapter or the inability to find the submitted article. Misrepresentation was defined as a change in authorship order. Data were summarized and analyzed, generalized estimating equations model was used. SAS software, v9.4.
    Results: All 392 applicants were included, 159 (2010-2011), 120 (2011-2012), and 119 (2012-2013). The number of manually reviewed records was 2,124. "Ghost" authorship was found in 234 articles out of 2,124 (11.02%). The overall rate of "Ghost" authorship in applicants to our program was found to be 34.4%, 135 applicants and misrepresentation in 5 cases (1.28%).
    Conclusions: Ghost publications are present in Plastic Surgery applications, its trend is similar through the years, "protective" factors are: first authorship and published peer reviewed abstract/article.
    Keywords:  Academic Plastic Surgery; Ethics; Publication; academic dishonesty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002617
  21. Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7796): 490
      
    Keywords:  Archaeology; History; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00531-5
  22. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2020 Feb;15(1): 1-7
    Alnamankany A, Ashley P.
      Objectives: This systematic review aimed to determine the improvement in quality of the reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in paediatric dentistry. The quality of reporting during the period 2014-2015 was compared with the quality of reporting during 1985-2006.Methods: This systematic review compared the scientific quality of RCTs in paediatric dentistry published in five paediatric dentistry journals during the defined periods. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist of 2010 was used to evaluate the quality of reporting. The inter-reviewers' agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa score, and disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consequent discussion. The p values and percentages were used to test for significant differences between the two reviews (1985-2006 and 2014-2015).
    Results: A total of 40 articles were included. Although the quality of reporting showed considerable heterogeneity, the overall quality of reporting by RCTs was satisfactory and had improved over the years.
    Conclusions: Using CONSORT checklist, this study showed general improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs published in pediatric dentistry journals in all article's sections.
    Keywords:  Paediatric dentistry; Published articles; RCTs; Reporting; Scientific quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.12.006
  23. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020 Feb;56(1): 120-125
    Arienti C, Kiekens C, Bettinsoli R, Engkasan JP, Gimigliano F, Grubisic F, Howe T, Ilieva E, Lazzarini SG, Levack WM, Malmivaara A, Meyer T, Oral A, Patrini M, Pollet J, Rathore FA, Negrini S.
      During its third year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation goals included to point out the main methodological issues in rehabilitation research, and to increase the Knowledge Translation activities. This has been performed through its committees and specific projects. In 2019, Cochrane Rehabilitation worked on five different special projects at different stages of development: 1) a collaboration with the World Health Organization to extract the best evidence for Rehabilitation (Be4rehab); 2) the development of a reporting checklist for Randomised Controlled Trials in rehabilitation (RCTRACK); 3) the definition of what is the rehabilitation for research purposes; 4) the ebook project; and 5) a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Committee finalized the screening and "tagging" of all rehabilitation reviews in the Cochrane library; the Publication Committee increased the number of international journals with which publish Cochrane Corners; the Education Committee continued performing educational activities such as workshops in different meetings; the Methodology Committee performed the second Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting and published many papers; the Communication Committee spread the rehabilitation evidence through different channels and translated the contents in different languages. The collaboration with several National and International Rehabilitation Scientific Societies, Universities, Hospitals, Research Centers and other organizations keeps on growing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06188-2