bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒06‒28
fourteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Account Res. 2020 Jun 23. 1-7
    Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL.
      The ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has triggered a flurry of associated research publications, numbering to ~137 papers a day since February 2020. This rate of publication appears to be exceptionally high, when compared to research papers published on other similar topics. Searches of COVID-19-associated publications on PubMed and Retraction Watch Database indicate that the retraction record appearance rate for COVID-19-related research is also exceptionally high compared to other related research topics in viral epidemics/pandemics and surpasses the basal level of about 4 in 10,000 papers. This finding serves as a reminder and caution against any lapses in the standard of work, peer review, and publication of COVID-19-related research.
    Keywords:  Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19); pandemic; research ethics; retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1782203
  2. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2020 Jul 01. 129(1): 3
    Teixeira da Silva JA.
      
    Keywords:  post-publication peer review; responsibility; retractions; stigma; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00258.2020
  3. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 29. 22(6): e21820
    Eysenbach G.
      In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, the World Health Organization (WHO) is presenting a framework for managing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infodemic. Infodemiology is now acknowledged by public health organizations and the WHO as an important emerging scientific field and critical area of practice during a pandemic. From the perspective of being the first "infodemiolgist" who originally coined the term almost two decades ago, I am positing four pillars of infodemic management: (1) information monitoring (infoveillance); (2) building eHealth Literacy and science literacy capacity; (3) encouraging knowledge refinement and quality improvement processes such as fact checking and peer-review; and (4) accurate and timely knowledge translation, minimizing distorting factors such as political or commercial influences. In the current COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations has advocated that facts and science should be promoted and that these constitute the antidote to the current infodemic. This is in stark contrast to the realities of infodemic mismanagement and misguided upstream filtering, where social media platforms such as Twitter have advertising policies that sideline science organizations and science publishers, treating peer-reviewed science as "inappropriate content."
    Keywords:  COVID-19; infodemic; infodemiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/21820
  4. BMC Med. 2020 Jun 25. 18(1): 192
    Bagdasarian N, Cross GB, Fisher D.
      BACKGROUND: Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern.MAIN TEXT: Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19.
    CONCLUSIONS: In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Preprint manuscripts; Rapid publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01650-6
  5. . 2020 Sep;46(5): 102187
    Teixeira da Silva JA.
      The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly "peer reviewed" papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of "peer review", when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of "predatory publishing", and is also a "fake" element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of "predatory publishing" is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged.
    Keywords:  Editorial oversight; Fake; Integrity; Misinformation; Peer review; Post-publication peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102187
  6. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 07;pii: S2214-109X(20)30260-6. [Epub ahead of print]8(7): e860
    The Lancet Global Health .
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30260-6
  7. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020 Jun 23.
    Tso S.
      There is a common theme behind every published and unpublished manuscript. Authors, contributors, reviewers and editorial staff put in timeless effort to construct a manuscript, feedback on the work, and thoughtfully put together an issue in a journal; with the hope that readers will find the published manuscript contribute to the synthesis of evidence-based practice and it is of educational value. Ahmed's recent editorial in the CED rightly highlighted the need to value and accredit reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.14344
  8. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 2020 Mar;31(1): 3-5
    Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD.
      
    Keywords:  PubMed; PubMed Central; open access; periodicals as topic; publishing; quality control; rheumatology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.31.1.3
  9. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020 Jul 01. 91(7): 608-610
    Day PC.
      INTRODUCTION: A readership survey was posted in our monthly newsletter, "Ever Upward", and sent via email to members of the Aerospace Medical Association and to authors and reviewers of the journal, Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. The reason for the survey concerned whether to publish 6 times (or perhaps 7) per year instead of 12. There were 403 respondents. Of those who responded, 30% said bimonthly publishing would affect whether they submitted to a journal; 70% said it would not impact their decision. Less than 4% strongly disapproved and 8% disapproved of moving to a bimonthly publication. While 67% were in favor and 20% didn't care one way or the other. There were many comments and some of those are addressed in the summary.Day PC. Comments on the readership survey concerning bi-monthly publication. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(7):608-610.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.5662.2020
  10. Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Jul 01. 116(8): e103-e105
    Small HY, Cathcart B, Brown SK.
      
    Keywords:  Cardiovascular; FCVB; Publishing; Reproducibility; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvaa138