bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒07‒19
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Nature. 2020 Jul 16.
    Van Noorden R.
    Keywords:  Funding; Policy; Publishing
  2. BMC Vet Res. 2020 Jul 14. 16(1): 242
    Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H.
      Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
  3. Elife. 2020 Jul 17. pii: e53249. [Epub ahead of print]9
    Buljan I, Garcia-Costa D, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F, Marušić A.
      Peer review is often criticized for being flawed, subjective and biased, but research into peer review has been hindered by a lack of access to peer review reports. Here we report the results of a study in which text-analysis software was used to determine the linguistic characteristics of 472,449 peer review reports. A range of characteristics (including analytical tone, authenticity, clout, three measures of sentiment, and morality) were studied as a function of reviewer recommendation, area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender. We found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact. The lack of influence of research area, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a sign of the robustness of peer review.
    Keywords:  none
  4. Mutat Res. 2020 Jun - Jul;854-855:pii: S1383-5718(20)30016-4. [Epub ahead of print]854-855 503146
    Brunborg G, Collins A.
  5. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020 Jul 18.
    Kumar S, Millar H, Blee I.
      We read the article by Ahmed discussing the accreditation of reviewers with great interest. The work of reviewers is vital to ensure articles meet high standards for publication, but this role is often poorly defined.
  6. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2020 Apr-Jun;32(2):32(2): 199-202
    Hardjosantoso HC, Dahi Y, Verhemel A, Dahi I, Gadjradj PS.
      Purpose: To report the prevalence of honorary authorship (HA) among different journals in the ophthalmological literature.Methods: An online survey was conducted among corresponding authors of six journals with the highest impact factors in the ophthalmological field. The survey consists of questions regarding (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines, and (3) application of authorship guidelines on their current surveyed article. Furthermore, respondents were asked if they felt that according to their understanding of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEs) guidelines, a coauthor on their current article did not deserve authorship (perceived HA). Furthermore, respondents were asked if coauthors performed solely nonauthor tasks (ICMJE-defined HA).
    Results: Out of the 1688 surveys sent, 333 were returned, leading to a response rate of 19.7%. Eighty-four and a half percent of all respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines. When deciding on order of authorship, most authors decided as a group (43.8%), followed by the senior author deciding (30.1%), and 77 articles were decided by the first author (23.4%). When asked if respondents believed that any of their coauthors did not make sufficient contributions to be included as an author, 8.8% affirmed. One hundred and thirty-one respondents stated that any of their coauthors performed only one or more nonauthor tasks, making the rate of ICMJE-defined HA 39.8%.
    Conclusions: HA is present throughout all journals surveyed despite endorsement of the ICMJE guidelines by these same journals. The discrepancy between self-perceived HA and ICMJE-defined HA suggests the necessity for modifications to our authorship system or a contemporary revision to the ICMJE guidelines.
    Keywords:  Honorary authorship; International Committee of Medical Journal Editor criteria; Ophthalmology
  7. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Jul 14. pii: bmjebm-2020-111474. [Epub ahead of print]
    Puljak L.
    Keywords:  evidence-based practice; methods
  8. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020 Jul 17.
    Slim K, Mattevi C, Badon F, Lecomte C, Selvy M.
      INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on our surgical practice and scientific publishing output.METHODS: The 100 best-ranked "surgery journals" were selected. The contents of the March, April, May, and June 2020 issues and ahead-of-print articles were screened. The retrieved articles on COVID-19 were separated into two categories: "opinion articles" and "scientific articles," i.e., randomized trials and original articles with structured methods and results. The number of COVID articles published in the TOP-10 journals was compared with that of COVID articles published elsewhere.
    RESULTS: There were 59 COVID original articles (8%). The great majority of articles were opinion articles (83.4%). Almost 40% of COVID articles were published in the TOP-10 journals.
    CONCLUSION: Original COVID articles (the core of our knowledge) are scant. Faced with a novel disease, neither the authors nor the editors should be criticized regarding this situation. The future step should be to publish high-quality papers in the setting of a major health crisis.
    Keywords:  Covid-19; Journals; Original article; Surgery
  9. Eur J Intern Med. 2020 Jul 09. pii: S0953-6205(20)30289-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pericàs JM, Arenas A, Torrallardona-Murphy O, Valero H, Nicolás D.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Editorial policies; Publishing trends; Scientific evidence; Scientific journals
  10. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jul 13. 35(27): e256
    Gupta L, Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M.
      BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time.METHODS: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time.
    RESULTS: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%).
    CONCLUSION: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Coronavirus Disease 2019; Information; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Social Media
  11. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Jul 17. pii: CJN.03800320. [Epub ahead of print]
    Vlasschaert C, Giles C, Hiremath S, Lanktree MB.
      Preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, have disrupted the scientific communication landscape by providing rapid access to research before peer review. medRxiv was launched as a free online repository for preprints in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences in 2019. In this review, we present the uptake of preprint server use in nephrology and discuss specific considerations regarding preprint server use in medicine. Distribution of kidney-related research on preprint servers is rising at an exponential rate. Survey of nephrology journals identified that 15 of 17 (88%) are publishing original research accepted submissions that have been uploaded to preprint servers. After reviewing 52 clinically impactful trials in nephrology discussed in the online Nephrology Journal Club (NephJC), an average lag of 300 days was found between study completion and publication, indicating an opportunity for faster research dissemination. Rapid review of papers discussing benefits and risks of preprint server use from the researcher, publisher, or end user perspective identified 53 papers that met criteria. Potential benefits of biomedical preprint servers included rapid dissemination, improved transparency of the peer review process, greater visibility and recognition, and collaboration. However, these benefits come at the risk of rapid spread of results not yet subjected to the rigors of peer review. Preprint servers shift the burden of critical appraisal to the reader. Media may be especially at risk due to their focus on "late-breaking" information. Preprint servers have played an even larger role when late-breaking research results are of special interest, such as during the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 has brought both the benefits and risks of preprint servers to the forefront. Given the prominent online presence of the nephrology community, it is poised to lead the medicine community in appropriate use of preprint servers.
    Keywords:  Preprint; education; kidney disease; peer review; social media
  12. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020 Jul 04. pii: S0196-0709(20)30327-6. [Epub ahead of print] 102633
    Begum S, Abdulla R.
  13. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2019 Feb;24(1): 1-2
    Ougrin D.
      The job of an editor is exciting, fraught with difficulties, friend-making, enemy-making, time-eating, time-saving, but above all, it is exciting. I took over from Jane Barlow in November 2018. First, I would like to thank her for her work. I do not just say this: Jane has made my work easy in many ways. She has steered the journal to become a recognisable presence in our field, with an impact factor, a growing number of downloads and high aspirations of participation in PubMed Central. The job of an editor is also to extend the success of previous editors. The way I see it is that CAMH should continue to grow to become one of the leading sources for clinically relevant knowledge worldwide. I would like you, our readers, to think of CAMH whenever you need clinical advice.
  14. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Jul 10. pii: S0924-8579(20)30251-X. [Epub ahead of print] 106081
    Voss A, Coombs G, Unal S, Saginur R, Hsueh PR.
  15. Sch Psychol. 2020 Jul;35(4): 227-232
    Codding RS, Collier-Meek M, Jimerson S, Klingbeil DA, Mayer MJ, Miller F.
      School Psychology is an outlet for research on children, youth, educators, and families that has scientific, practice, and policy implications. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly disrupted K-12 schooling as well as university training, impacting educational attainment and highlighting longstanding inequality. Furthermore, the killing of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd has precipitated worldwide protests against antiblack racism, white supremacy, and police brutality. In this editorial, we highlight the potential impacts to our field, including prioritizing research related to educational equity, identifying new research questions related to technology, and utilizing new research methods. We also consider the impact of gender and racial disparities in publications during this time. Finally, given these events, we discuss how best our editorial team can serve the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).