bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒05‒03
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Nature. 2019 Apr 30.
    Fleming N.
      
    Keywords:  Institutions; Medical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01389-y
  2. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr 29. e13257
    Papes D, Ozimec E.
      Additional to the problems described very well by Dr. Ioannidis1 , there is another issue that became highlighted during this pandemic: redundancy in research and reporting. Redundant articles repeat already known information and are mostly published just for the sake of publishing. By searching through Pubmed, one can easily see that the number of publications related to COVID-19 is growing exponentially (Figure).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13257
  3. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 ;11(1): 1739885
    Kassam-Adams N, Olff M.
      This editorial argues that it is time for the traumatic stress field to join the growing international movement towards Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable (FAIR) research data, and that we are well-positioned to do so. The field has a huge, largely untapped resource in the enormous number of rich potentially re-usable datasets that are not currently shared or preserved. We have several promising shared data resources created via international collaborative efforts by traumatic stress researchers, but we do not yet have common standards for data description, sharing, or preservation. And, despite the promise of novel findings from data sharing and re-use, there are a number of barriers to researchers' adoption of FAIR data practices. We present a vision for the future of FAIR traumatic stress data, and a call to action for the traumatic stress research community and individual researchers and research teams to help achieve this vision.
    Keywords:  FAIR data; data citation; data preservation; data sharing; data stewardship; open science; • Existing traumatic stress research data is a rich and largely untapped resource, and our field is well-positioned to join the growing international movement toward FAIR data. This editorial presents a vision for the future of FAIR traumatic stress data, and specific steps that investigators and research teams, as well as the larger traumatic stress research community, can take to help bring this about.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1739885
  4. Database (Oxford). 2020 Jan 01. pii: baaa028. [Epub ahead of print]2020
    Lock A, Harris MA, Rutherford K, Hayles J, Wood V.
      Maximizing the impact and value of scientific research requires efficient knowledge distribution, which increasingly depends on the integration of standardized published data into online databases. To make data integration more comprehensive and efficient for fission yeast research, PomBase has pioneered a community curation effort that engages publication authors directly in FAIR-sharing of data representing detailed biological knowledge from hypothesis-driven experiments. Canto, an intuitive online curation tool that enables biologists to describe their detailed functional data using shared ontologies, forms the core of PomBase's system. With 8 years' experience, and as the author response rate reaches 50%, we review community curation progress and the insights we have gained from the project. We highlight incentives and nudges we deploy to maximize participation, and summarize project outcomes, which include increased knowledge integration and dissemination as well as the unanticipated added value arising from co-curation by publication authors and professional curators.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa028
  5. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;48(1_suppl): 167-177
    Majumder MA, McGuire AL.
      As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520917044
  6. Nature. 2020 Apr 28.
    Taylor LA.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Health care; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01166-2
  7. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 13. pii: S0735-6757(19)30837-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Fladie IA, Rorah D, Pollard J, Jellison S, Thabane L, Murray K, Gardner G, Vassar M.
      OBJECTIVE: The extent of intervention reporting in emergency medicine journals remains unclear. The primary objective is to assess overall completion of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist described in emergency medicine randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The secondary outcomes were to (1) compare reporting before and after TIDieR publication; (2) evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting.METHODS: Our cross-sectional study used Google Scholar's metrics to identify seven emergency medicine journals; of which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. Using two PubMed searches, we extracted 150 RCTs before and after publications of TIDieR. Two investigators independently extracted data. The primary analysis to measure overall completion included descriptive statistics for each checklist item. Our secondary analysis used an interrupted time series analysis and generalized estimating equations to determine the effect of TIDieR publication on intervention reporting.
    RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 635 articles; from which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. We excluded 67 articles, leaving 233 for analysis. The mean number of TIDieR items reported was 5.4 (standard deviation = 1.18). Of the 233 trials, 42.9% provided information about materials, 67% provided intervention procedures, and 99.1% provided intervention delivery. The least reported items were intervention modifications (2.6%), intervention adherence assessment methods (3.4%), and intervention adherence assessment outcomes (2.2%).
    CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of intervention reporting is suboptimal in emergency medicine journals, necessitating improvement. The current state of adherence could be improved through the combined efforts of journal editors, major editorial organizations, and authors.
    Keywords:  Intervention reporting; Reporting guidelines; Reproducibility; TIDieR; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.12.030
  8. Nature. 2019 May 01.
    White M.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01431-z
  9. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Apr 27. pii: S0266-4356(20)30096-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Smith AB.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.03.012
  10. Nephrol Nurs J. 2020 Mar-Apr;47(2):47(2): 153-162
    Montoya V, Astroth KS, Decker V.
      This article is part of the "Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals" series. It provides nephrology nurses with basic principles related to writing for publication, information regarding different types of professional articles that may be used for the dissemination of nursing knowledge, as well as steps to follow and issues to consider in the planning and preparation of a manuscript.
    Keywords:  authorship; conflict of interest; peer review; plagiarism; practice-based articles; publishing; quality improvement articles; scholarly writing
  11. J Cancer Educ. 2020 Apr 30.
    Busse C, August E.
      Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the appendix, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.
    Keywords:  Manuscripts; Publishing; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
  12. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2020 Apr 28.
    Oermann MH, Nicoll LH, Ashton KS, Edie AH, Amarasekara S, Chinn PL, Carter-Templeton H, Ledbetter LS.
      PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to learn how predatory journal articles were cited in articles published in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals. The extent of citation and citation patterns were studied.DESIGN: A two-phase approach was used.
    METHODS: In Phase 1, 204 articles published in legitimate nursing journals that cited a predatory publication were randomly selected for analysis from a list of 814 articles with predatory journal citations. In Phase 2, the four predatory journal articles that were cited most frequently were analyzed further to examine their citation patterns.
    FINDINGS: The majority (n = 148, 72.55%) of the articles that cited a predatory publication were research reports. Most commonly, the predatory article was only cited once (n = 117, 61.58%). Most (n = 158, 82.72%) of the predatory articles, though, were used substantively, that is, to provide a basis for the study or methods, describe the results, or explain the findings. The four articles in Phase 2 generated 38 citations in legitimate journals, published from 2011 to 2019, demonstrating persistence in citation. An evaluation of the quality of these articles was mixed.
    CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide an understanding of the use and patterns of citations to predatory articles in legitimate nursing journals. Authors who choose predatory journals as the channel to disseminate their publications devalue the work that publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play in scholarly dissemination. Likewise, those who cite these works are also contributing to the problem of predatory publishing in nursing.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurse authors should not publish their work in predatory journals and should avoid citing articles from these journals, which disseminates the content through the scholarly nursing literature.
    Keywords:  Citation analysis; editorial standards; ethical issues; nursing journals; predatory journals; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12557
  13. Methods Inf Med. 2019 Dec;58(6): 229-234
    Parciak M, Bender T, Sax U, Bauer CR.
      BACKGROUND:  Managing research data in biomedical informatics research requires solid data governance rules to guarantee sustainable operation, as it generally involves several professions and multiple sites. As every discipline involved in biomedical research applies its own set of tools and methods, research data as well as applied methods tend to branch out into numerous intermediate and output data objects, making it very difficult to reproduce research results.OBJECTIVES:  This article gives an overview of our implementation status applying the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR) Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship onto our research data management pipeline focusing on the software tools that are in use.
    METHODS:  We analyzed our progress FAIRificating the whole data management pipeline, from processing non-FAIR data up to data usage. We looked at software tools for data integration, data storage, and data usage as well as how the FAIR Guiding Principles helped to choose appropriate tools for each task.
    RESULTS:  We were able to advance the degree of FAIRness of our data integration as well as data storage solutions, but lack enabling more FAIR Guiding Principles regarding Data Usage. Existing evaluation methods regarding the FAIR Guiding Principles (FAIRmetrics) were not applicable to our analysis of software tools.
    CONCLUSION:  Using the FAIR Guiding Principles, we FAIRificated relevant parts of our research data management pipeline improving findability, accessibility, interoperability and reuse of datasets and research results. We aim to implement the FAIRmetrics to our data management infrastructure and-where required-to contribute to the FAIRmetrics for research data in the biomedical informatics domain as well as for software tools to achieve a higher degree of FAIRness of our research data management pipeline.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709158
  14. Haemophilia. 2020 Apr;26 Suppl 3 29-31
    Hermans C.
      Better access to haemophilia treatment and care is currently changing the life of a great many patients with haemophilia or other inherited bleeding diseases in numerous developing countries. These changes are encouraging while stimulating local research initiatives and projects that deserve to be communicated through scientific publications. This paper addresses several opportunities and challenges, providing guidance to scientists, clinicians, researchers and health professionals from developing countries who are actively involved in multidisciplinary haemophilia care, while wishing to publish their reports in Haemophilia, the official, global, multidisciplinary journal of the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH), the European Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) organization and the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society (HTRS) of North America, focusing on inherited bleeding diseases. Several strategies and pathways designed to encourage, help and support successful publications from developing countries are herein discussed.
    Keywords:  developing countries; haemophilia; medical journals; medical writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.13893
  15. J Biomed Opt. 2020 May;25(5): 1-2
    Pogue BW.
      Journal of Biomedical Optics editor-in-chief Brian W. Pogue outlines a revision of scope for the journal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.25.5.050101