bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒04‒19
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 17. 22(4): e12288
    Sathianathen NJ, Lane Iii R, Murphy DG, Loeb S, Bakker C, Lamb AD, Weight CJ.
      BACKGROUND: Social media coverage is increasingly used to spread the message of scientific publications. Traditionally, the scientific impact of an article is measured by the number of citations. At a journal level, this conventionally matures over a 2-year period, and it is challenging to gauge impact around the time of publication.OBJECTIVE: We, therefore, aimed to assess whether Web-based attention is associated with citations and to develop a predictive model that assigns relative importance to different elements of social media coverage: the #SoME_Impact score.
    METHODS: We included all original articles published in 2015 in a selection of the highest impact journals: The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature, Cell, and Science. We first characterized the change in Altmetric score over time by taking a single month's sample of recently published articles from the same journals and gathered Altmetric data daily from the time of publication to create a mixed effects spline model. We then obtained the overall weighted Altmetric score for all articles from 2015, the unweighted data for each Altmetric component, and the 2-year citation count from Scopus for each of these articles from 2016 to 2017. We created a stepwise multivariable linear regression model to develop a #SoME_Score that was predictive of 2-year citations. The score was validated using a dataset of articles from the same journals published in 2016.
    RESULTS: In our unselected sample of 145 recently published articles, social media coverage appeared to plateau approximately 14 days after publication. A total of 3150 articles with a median citation count of 16 (IQR 5-33) and Altmetric score of 72 (IQR 28-169) were included for analysis. On multivariable regression, compared with articles in the lowest quantile of #SoME_Score, articles in the second, third, and upper quantiles had 0.81, 15.20, and 87.67 more citations, respectively. On the validation dataset, #SoME_Score model outperformed the Altmetric score (adjusted R2 0.19 vs 0.09; P<.001). Articles in the upper quantile of #SoME_Score were more than 5 times more likely to be among the upper quantile of those cites (odds ratio 5.61, 95% CI 4.70-6.73).
    CONCLUSIONS: Social media attention predicts citations and could be used as an early surrogate measure of scientific impact. Owing to the cross-sectional study design, we cannot determine whether correlation relates to causation.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; online intervention; online social networking; online systems; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/12288
  2. Ir J Med Sci. 2020 Apr 15.
    Teixeira da Silva JA.
      In December of 2019, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) updated its recommendations. As occurs regularly with the ICMJE recommendations, this document was edited and tweaked, and thus fortified and verified. At least one new fortifying positive element was introduced, namely that peer reviewers who relied on the assistance of others during peer review need to declare this to editors. This fortifies publishing integrity, via transparency, in the peer review process in biomedical science. However, a new clause was introduced: "Authors should avoid citing articles in predatory or pseudo-journals." This is controversial because the precise nature of "predatory" publishing venues, either journals or publishers, is unclear and several parameters used by existing blacklists are unreliable and thus debatable. It is concerning that these edited recommendations were simultaneously published in 13 medical journals.
    Keywords:  Blacklists; Exceptionalism; Fake; Integrity; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; Predatory publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02227-1
  3. Nature. 2019 Apr 15.
    Else H.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00406-4
  4. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020 Jan;84(1): 7124
    O'Sullivan TA, Jefferson CG.
      Objective. To characterize elements of the results section of qualitative research reports that make findings more accessible to readers. Methods. Two analytical methods were used for this review. First, published reviews and textbooks written by experts outlining how to evaluate qualitative research were retrieved and reviewed to identify common elements that enhance clarity of the results section. In the second analysis, the authors analyzed the results sections of a subset of qualitative studies to identify, from a reader's point of view, aspects that enhanced and detracted from communication of the results. Findings. Four elements improve accessibility of the results section for readers of qualitative research reports. Content, the first element, describes what information the reader should look for in the results section. Style of results, the second element, identifies wording choices that improve reader accessibility and understanding. Narrative flow, the third element, describes a results section that flows smoothly and logically. Structural cohesiveness, the final element, outlines effective organization of the results section. Results. While authors take several approaches to the presentation of results in qualitative research reports, some strategies appear to be more common and effective than others. The efficient presentation of results can impact a reader's assessment of the quality and credibility of a study. Identified content and stylistic elements should be considered by authors hoping to make the results of their qualitative research more accessible and comprehensible to readers.
    Keywords:  medical writing; qualitative research; research papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7124
  5. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2020 ;pii: S1807-59322020000100103. [Epub ahead of print]75 e1895
    Moreira LFP.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1895
  6. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Mar-Apr;5(2):5(2): 146-151
    Koroulakis A, Rice SR, DeCesaris C, Knight N, Nichols EM.
      Purpose: We aimed to assess perceptions of, and training regarding, the publishing process among US radiation oncology (RO) residents, focusing on awareness and understanding of criteria for selecting appropriate and legitimate peer-reviewed journals for academic publishing. The growing challenge of predatory publication in the broader scientific realm and its relevancy to resident training is also briefly discussed.Methods and Materials: A survey was opened to residents of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO programs in the United States, focusing on 3 categories: (1) demographics; (2) submission, peer review, and publication of academic research; and (3) subjective ranking of factors for choosing an appropriate publisher/journal. Results were stratified by level of training and number of publications.
    Results: Overall, 150 of 690 residents (19.8%) responded, with a 98% (147 of 150) completion rate. Twenty of 150 residents (13.3%) reported formal training in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals. Only 3.4% of residents reported departmental guidelines regarding publication in "predatory" journals; 57.7% were unsure. The 3 most important factors influencing publisher and journal choice were impact factor (ranked first for 59.0%), whether a journal is found in a major index (ranked first for 18.0%), and association with a reputable organization (ranked first for 17.0%). Importance of impact factor increased with number of publications (50% with 0 publications, 48.3% with 1-5, 63.9% with 5-10, 76.2% with 10-15, and 70.6% with >15). Cost considerations influenced journal choice at least once for 79 (52.7%) residents.
    Conclusions: Impact factor was the most important consideration for residents when choosing an appropriate publisher, with increased emphasis with increasing number of publications. A minority had formal training in choosing appropriate academic journals and knowing how to identify so-called predatory journals or were aware if their department has proscriptions regarding publication in such journals. Additional emphasis on formal training for RO residents in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals is warranted.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.09.001
  7. Account Res. 2020 Apr 11.
    Palla IA, Sngson M, Thiyagarajan S.
      Academics are expected to publish their research work. Hence, during the past few years, the scientific community has witnessed an ever-increasing growth and output in scientific papers. However, a large number of authors have violated ethical norms of research leading to retractions of their research works as well. The article focuses on the scientific fraud emanating from China and India in Health Sciences for a period of three years i.e. 2015 to 2018. The present data were extracted from http://retractiondatabase.org/using a search filter term "Research Articles OR Articles in Press" on the subject category of Health Sciences (HSC). A total of 318 retracted papers were retrieved and the result of the study indicated that majority (268 items) of the retracted papers in Health Science originated from China, whereas just 50 retracted papers originated from India as on 21-02-2019. While analyzing the data, 26 redundant articles from China have been removed that received retraction notices. Further, the results of the study suggest that there are several factors associated with retraction of scientific papers, which include unreliable results, duplication of results, plagiarism, forged authorship, error in the text, error in data and so on.
    Keywords:  Health Science; Journal Impact Factor; Plagiarism; Research Misconduct; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1754804
  8. J Hum Lact. 2020 Apr 16. 890334420912210
    .
      
    Keywords:  Journal of Human Lactation; breastfeeding; predatory publishing; publishing ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334420912210
  9. Scientometrics. 2019 May;119(2): 827-843
    Hicks D, Melkers J, Isett KR.
      The publishing industry is a vast system whose elements form a metaphorical ecosystem with knowledge flowing through connections between heterogeneous elements. In this paper we seek a more robust understanding of different types of literature, and whether and how they support one another in the diffusion of knowledge. We analyze a corpus comprising professional electronic media in US dentistry and its relation to the peer reviewed journal literature. Our corpus includes full text from magazines, news sites and blogs that provide information to clinicians. We find links to research are made through several mechanisms: articles describing new clinical guidelines, referencing, summaries of recently published journal articles and crossover authoring. There is little to no apparent time lag in the diffusion of information from research literature to professional media.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03072-5
  10. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2020 Apr 16.
    Solle D.
      Wouldn't it be great, if experimental data were findable wherever they were? If experimental data were accessible' regardless of the storage place and format? If experimental data were interoperable independent of the author or its origin? If experimental data were reusable for further analysis without experimental repetition? The current state of the art of data acquisition in the laboratory is very diverse. A lot of different devices are used, analogue as well as digital ones. Usually all experimental setups and observations are summarized in a handwritten lab notebook, independently from digital or analogue sources. To change the actual and common way of laboratory data acquisition into a digital and modern one, electronic lab notebooks can be used. A challenge of science is to facilitate knowledge discovery by assisting humans and machines in their discovery of scientific data and their associated algorithms and workflows. FAIR describes a set of guiding principles to make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.
    Keywords:  FAIR principles; Lab notebooks; Open access; Scientific data management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-020-02526-7
  11. BMJ. 2020 Apr 14. 369 m982
    Al-Durra M, Nolan RP, Seto E, Cafazzo JA.
      OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration.DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis.
    DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the 17 World Health Organization's trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports.
    STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018.
    RESULTS: This study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m982
  12. Nature. 2020 Apr 15.
    Silver A, Cyranoski D.
      
    Keywords:  Government; Media; Policy; Publishing; Vaccines; Virology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01108-y
  13. SAGE Open Med. 2020 ;8 2050312120915399
    An JY, Marchalik RJ, Sherrer RL, Baiocco JA, Rais-Bahrami S.
      Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate authorship trends among publications in high-impact, peer-reviewed specialty journals published within the last decade and to assess how publication practices differ among medical specialties.Methods: The National Institutes of Health's Portfolio Analysis platform, iCite, was queried for PubMed-indexed case reports, review articles, and original research articles published between 2005 and 2017 in 69 high-impact, clinical journals encompassing 23 medical specialties. Overall, 121,397 peer-reviewed publications were evaluated-of which, 45.1% were original research, 28.7% were review articles, and 26.3% were case reports. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the magnitude of association of publication year on the number of authors per article by specialty and article type.
    Results: Original research articles have the greatest increase in authorship (0.23 more authors per article per year), as compared with review articles (0.18 authors per article per year) and case reports (0.01 authors per article per year). Twenty-two of the 23 specialties evaluated had increase in authorship in high-impact specialty journals. Specialty growth rates ranged from 0.42 authors/year (Neurology), Psychiatry (0.35 authors/year), General Surgery (0.29 authors/year), Urology (0.27 authors/year), and Pathology (0.27 authors/year). Specialties with a greater percentage of graduates entering academics had more authors per article; surgical specialties and length of residency were not found to be predictive factors.
    Conclusion: There has been substantial growth in the authorship bylines of contemporary medical literature, much of which cannot be explained by increased complexity or collaboration alone.
    Keywords:  Citations; academic medicine; impact factor; medical publishing; medical specialties
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312120915399
  14. Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7803): 309
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing; SARS-CoV-2
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01023-2