bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒05‒31
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 May 25. 35(20): e138
    Barroga E.
      Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.
    Keywords:  Bias; Education; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Peer Reviewer; Publications
  2. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2020 May 27.
    Zakout YM.
      PURPOSE: The phenomenon of predatory publishers and journals is one of the recent issues to affect the scientific field. It has negative impacts upon scientific research and harmful consequences, including the spread of pseudo-medical sciences. This article discusses general outlines regarding the concept of predatory journals to clarify this issue for junior researchers and academic workers.METHODS: A brief description of the mechanism of publication within legitimate journals was highlighted. Moreover, the negative impact of this behavior was clarified along with several suggestions that may help authors to avoid predatory journals. Finally, post-predatory publication procedures were discussed, followed by practical steps to eliminate or minimize this phenomenon.
    CONCLUSION: The practice of publishing in the predatory journals needs to be addressed; raising this topic in all academic and research institutions may help minimize the impacts. Moreover, this topic must be part of the curriculum for both undergraduate and graduate courses to draw students' attention to this issue. Furthermore, actions should be taken against those who deliberately publish their work in such journals.
    Keywords:  Medical sciences; Predatory journals; Predatory publishers
  3. Sci Total Environ. 2020 May 14. pii: S0048-9697(20)32846-1. [Epub ahead of print]734 139329
    Krauskopf E, Funk RL.
    Keywords:  Open access; Predatory publishers; Publons; Scopus
  4. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 7
    Gallo SA, Schmaling KB, Thompson LA, Glisson SR.
      Background: Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated.Methods: Here, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion from their last peer review experience.
    Results: Reviewers indicated that panel discussions were viewed favorably in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers, and chair facilitation. However, some reviewers mentioned issues with panel discussions, including an uneven focus, limited participation from unassigned reviewers, and short discussion times. Most reviewers felt the discussions affected the review outcome, helped in choosing the best science, and were generally fair and balanced. However, those who felt the discussion did not affect the outcome were also more likely to evaluate panel communication negatively, and several reviewers mentioned potential sources of bias related to the discussion. While respondents strongly acknowledged the importance of the chair in ensuring appropriate facilitation of the discussion to influence scoring and to limit the influence of potential sources of bias from the discussion on scoring, nearly a third of respondents did not find the chair of their most recent panel to have performed these roles effectively.
    Conclusions: It is likely that improving chair training in the management of discussion as well as creating review procedures that are informed by the science of leadership and team communication would improve review processes and proposal review reliability.
    Keywords:  Bias; Communication; Discussion; Grant applications; Innovation; Leadership; Peer review; Research funding; Survey; Team science
  5. Climacteric. 2020 May 26. 1-2
    Bell RJ, Haring R.
      Open data is another step on the pathway of strengthening medical research. Allowing access to data facilitates testing the reproducibility of research findings. It also allows for the testing of new hypotheses, the incorporation of individual level data into meta-analyses and the development of very large data sets in which to develop and test new algorithms. There are now many data repositories that researchers can use to share their protocols, syntax and data. There are strategies both for managing what other researchers do with publically available data and for rewarding researchers who share their data. There is a strong ethical argument for making data publically available and research participants are generally supportive of this approach.
    Keywords:  Open data; data sharing
  6. J Allied Health. 2020 ;49(2): 77
    Elwood TW.
      The universe of scientific periodicals is subject to a constant series of alterations. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently has found it necessary to remove some of its reviewers because they either failed to disclose key ties or they breached confidentiality. Gender representation in academia influences research productivity and impact from the perspective of sustainability in women's careers on campuses. A proposed Plan S in the context of open-access publications is a robust topic that continues to attract interest among major journals. More than 20 funders have joined the initiative, which is expected to be launched in 2021. The existence and growth in the number of predatory journals is of much concern. Some observations on each of these matters are as follows.
  7. Injury. 2020 05;pii: S0020-1383(20)30339-9. [Epub ahead of print]51(5): 1151
    Civil ID, Giannoudis PV.