bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒04‒26
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. PLoS Genet. 2020 Apr;16(4): e1008565
    Penfold NC, Polka JK.
      Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the exponential growth in submissions to bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here, we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565
  2. BMC Med. 2020 Apr 21. 18(1): 88
    Cobey KD, Rice DB, Lalu MM, Abramowitz D, Ahmadzai N, Cunningham H, Ayala AP, Raffoul H, Khan F, Shamseer L, Moher D.
      BACKGROUND: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review.METHODS: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types.
    RESULTS: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)).
    CONCLUSION: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.
    Keywords:  Open access; Plagiarism; Predatory journals; Scholarly publishing models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01550-9
  3. Perspect Med Educ. 2020 Apr 21.
    Maggio LA, Bynum WE, Schreiber-Gregory DN, Durning SJ, Artino AR.
      INTRODUCTION: Biomedical researchers have lamented the lengthy timelines from manuscript submission to publication and highlighted potential detrimental effects on scientific progress and scientists' careers. In 2015, Himmelstein identified the mean time from manuscript submission to acceptance in biomedicine as approximately 100 days. The length of publication timelines in health professions education (HPE) is currently unknown.METHODS: This study replicates Himmelstein's work with a sample of 14 HPE journals published between 2008-2018. Using PubMed, 19,182 article citations were retrieved. Open metadata for each were downloaded, including the date the article was received by the journal, date the authors resubmitted revisions, date the journal accepted the article, and date of entry into PubMed. Journals without publication history metadata were excluded.
    RESULTS: Publication history data were available for 55% (n = 8) of the journals sampled. The publication histories of 4,735 (25%) articles were analyzed. Mean time from: (1) author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days (SD = 103.89), (2) author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD = 157.61), and (3) journal acceptance to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days (SD = 135.72).
    DISCUSSION: This study presents publication metadata for journals that openly provide it-a first step towards understanding publication timelines in HPE. Findings confirm the replicability of the original study, and the limited data suggest that, in comparison to biomedical scientists broadly, medical educators may experience longer wait times for article acceptance and publication. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata.
    Keywords:  Open Data; Open Science; Publishing; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00576-2
  4. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020 Apr-Jun;14(2):14(2): 286-287
    Narejo AS, Aqil M.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_96_20
  5. Injury. 2020 Apr 18. pii: S0020-1383(20)30340-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Papadakis M, Zirngibl H.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.04.009
  6. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020 Apr-Jun;14(2):14(2): 212-216
    Sharma H, Verma S.
      Scientific conferences, once deemed essential in scholars' lives, are now converting into a high-profit business. These predatory conferences are often organized by some profit-making predatory publishers or manufacturing companies for marketing their product or luring young researchers and scientists to submit their research manuscripts to these so-called predatory journals. Various tactics are used by these conferences to extract money from the researchers and students such as organizing conferences at attractive tourist places with multidisciplinary scope, invitation to submit a research paper to be published at the earliest or to become part of an editorial board/editor-in-chief. It should be realized that these predatory conferences do not provide any benefit to registering individuals for the development of science. The only remedy to expose and stop the business of all such predatory conference organizers is by creating awareness among young scholars and researchers, regarding these predatory conferences and the demerits of attending them, through the established medical and dental institutions, along with specialized associations and societies. A zero-tolerance policy should be created to ban such conferences with a refusal to provide promotion or funding to scholars or researchers attending these conferences. Hence, this narrative review aims to create awareness regarding these predatory conferences, the tactics used by them to trap researchers and ways which young researchers and academic scholars can use to delineate them from legitimate ones.
    Keywords:  Access to information; conference; electronic mail; peer review; predatory behavior; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_668_19
  7. Toxicol Pathol. 2020 Apr 22. 192623320920209
    Elmore SA, Weston EH.
      Predatory journals-also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals-are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about article processing charges, misrepresenting members of the journal's editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Because of their increasing prevalence, this article aims to provide helpful information for authors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.
    Keywords:  deceptive journal; fake peer review; predatory journals; predatory publishing; publishing ethics; scholarly communications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320920209
  8. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr 19. e13244
    Mischak H.
      Scientific research and progress is based on the principle of hypotheses supported or disproved by repeated testing and scientific prove, which in turn is based on data. This principle has been implemented also in the context of scientific publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13244
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 20. pii: 201912441. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reyna VF.
      A framework is presented for understanding how misinformation shapes decision-making, which has cognitive representations of gist at its core. I discuss how the framework goes beyond prior work, and how it can be implemented so that valid scientific messages are more likely to be effective, remembered, and shared through social media, while misinformation is resisted. The distinction between mental representations of the rote facts of a message-its verbatim representation-and its gist explains several paradoxes, including the frequent disconnect between knowing facts and, yet, making decisions that seem contrary to those facts. Decision makers can falsely remember the gist as seen or heard even when they remember verbatim facts. Indeed, misinformation can be more compelling than information when it provides an interpretation of reality that makes better sense than the facts. Consequently, for many issues, scientific information and misinformation are in a battle for the gist. A fuzzy-processing preference for simple gist explains expectations for antibiotics, the spread of misinformation about vaccination, and responses to messages about global warming, nuclear proliferation, and natural disasters. The gist, which reflects knowledge and experience, induces emotions and brings to mind social values. However, changing mental representations is not sufficient by itself; gist representations must be connected to values. The policy choice is not simply between constraining behavior or persuasion-there is another option. Science communication needs to shift from an emphasis on disseminating rote facts to achieving insight, retaining its integrity but without shying away from emotions and values.
    Keywords:  emotion; fuzzy-trace theory; gist; misinformation; science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912441117
  10. J Trauma Stress. 2020 Apr;33(2): 133-136
    Kerig PK.
      This editorial describes new initiatives designed to promote and maintain open science practices (OSP) at the Journal of Traumatic Stress, to be enacted beginning January 2020. Following a brief description of the rationale underlying the argument for conducting and reporting research in ways that maximize transparency and replicability, this article summarizes changes in Journal submission and publication procedures that are designed to foster and highlight such practices. These include requesting an Open Science Practices Statement from authors of all accepted manuscripts, which will be published as supplementary material for each article, and providing authors with the opportunity to earn OSP badges for preregistering studies, making data available to other researchers by posting on a third party archive, and making available research materials and codes used in the study.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22489
  11. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020 Apr;44(2): 49-51
    Ramstrand N, Fatone S, Dillon MP, Hafner BJ.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364620915020
  12. J Health Psychol. 2020 Apr 24. 1359105320916858
    Marks DF.
      This editorial announces this journal's policy on transparency, openness and replication. From 1 July 2020, authors of manuscripts submitted to Journal of Health Psychology (JHP) are required to make the raw data fully accessible to all readers. JHP will only consider manuscripts which follow an open publication model defined as follows: M = Mandatory, I = Inclusion (of), R = Raw, D = Data (MIRD). All data and analytical procedures must be sufficiently well described to enable a third party with the appropriate expertise to replicate the data analyses. It is expected that findings and analyses in the JHP will be fully capable of being accurately reproduced.
    Keywords:  JHP; MIRD model; data sharing; editorial; openness; policy; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320916858
  13. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2020 Apr-Jun;63(2):63(2): 175-176
    Agrawal R.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.282724
  14. Nature. 2020 Apr 20.
    Derrick G.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; SARS-CoV-2
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01144-8
  15. Med Ref Serv Q. 2020 Apr-Jun;39(2):39(2): 125-138
    Healy HS, Regan M, Deberg J.
      This case study describes the process librarians at a large research university used to evaluate a systematic review searching service. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies with a local, health sciences author. Data on librarian involvement, search quality, and standards adherence were recorded. Results of the assessment indicate a gradual increase in librarian authorship or acknowledgement over time, a moderate improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time, and insight into which departments better adhere to standards. Ideas for improving the quality and reach of the service while ensuring sustainability are discussed.
    Keywords:  Expert searcher; PRISMA; health sciences librarians; librarian’s role; library services; reporting guidelines; service evaluation; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2020.1726150
  16. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Feb;9(2): 1279
    Singh A.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_952_19