bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒07‒26
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Elife. 2020 Jul 23. pii: e60080. [Epub ahead of print]9
    Barnett A, Doubleday Z.
      Some acronyms are useful and are widely understood, but many of the acronyms used in scientific papers hinder understanding and contribute to the increasing fragmentation of science. Here we report the results of an analysis of more than 24 million article titles and 18 million article abstracts published between 1950 and 2019. There was at least one acronym in 19% of the titles and 73% of the abstracts. Acronym use has also increased over time, but the re-use of acronyms has declined. We found that from more than one million unique acronyms in our data, just over 2,000 (0.2%) were used regularly, and most acronyms (79%) appeared fewer than 10 times. Acronyms are not the biggest current problem in science communication, but reducing their use is a simple change that would help readers and potentially increase the value of science.
    Keywords:  acronyms; communication; knowledge; meta-research; none; scientific publishing; scientific writing
  2. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 10
    Konkol M, Nüst D, Goulier L.
      Background: The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials reproducibly is challenging, several projects have developed solutions to support the release of executable analyses alongside articles.Methods: We reviewed 11 applications that can assist researchers in adhering to reproducibility principles. The applications were found through a literature search and interactions with the reproducible research community. An application was included in our analysis if it (i) was actively maintained at the time the data for this paper was collected, (ii) supports the publication of executable code and data, (iii) is connected to the scholarly publication process. By investigating the software documentation and published articles, we compared the applications across 19 criteria, such as deployment options and features that support authors in creating and readers in studying executable papers.
    Results: From the 11 applications, eight allow publishers to self-host the system for free, whereas three provide paid services. Authors can submit an executable analysis using Jupyter Notebooks or R Markdown documents (10 applications support these formats). All approaches provide features to assist readers in studying the materials, e.g., one-click reproducible results or tools for manipulating the analysis parameters. Six applications allow for modifying materials after publication.
    Conclusions: The applications support authors to publish reproducible research predominantly with literate programming. Concerning readers, most applications provide user interfaces to inspect and manipulate the computational analysis. The next step is to investigate the gaps identified in this review, such as the costs publishers have to expect when hosting an application, the consideration of sensitive data, and impacts on the review process.
    Keywords:  Computational statistics; Open reproducible research; Open science; Scholarly communication
  3. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(7): e0236166
    Graham SS, Majdik ZP, Clark D, Kessler MM, Hooker TB.
      Recently, concerns have been raised over the potential impacts of commercial relationships on editorial practices in biomedical publishing. Specifically, it has been suggested that certain commercial relationships may make editors more open to publishing articles with author conflicts of interest (aCOI). Using a data set of 128,781 articles published in 159 journals, we evaluated the relationships among commercial publishing practices and reported author conflicts of interest. The 159 journals were grouped according to commercial biases (reprint services, advertising revenue, and ownership by a large commercial publishing firm). 30.6% (39,440) of articles were published in journals showing no evidence of evaluated commercial publishing relationships. 33.9% (43,630) were published in journals accepting advertising and reprint fees; 31.7% (40,887) in journals owned by large publishing firms; 1.2% (1,589) in journals accepting reprint fees only; and 2.5% (3,235) in journals accepting only advertising fees. Journals with commercial relationships were more likely to publish articles with aCOI (9.2% (92/1000) vs. 6.4% (64/1000), p = 0.024). In the multivariate analysis, only a journal's acceptance of reprint fees served as a significant predictor (OR = 2.81 at 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.6). Shared control estimation was used to evaluate the relationships between commercial publishing practices and aCOI frequency in total and by type. BCa-corrected mean difference effect sizes ranged from -1.0 to 6.1, and confirm findings indicating that accepting reprint fees may constitute the most significant commercial bias. The findings indicate that concerns over the influence of industry advertising in medical journals may be overstated, and that accepting fees for reprints may constitute the largest risk of bias for editorial decision-making.
  4. Childs Nerv Syst. 2020 Jul 22.
    Akhaddar A.
      PURPOSE: The issue of error of scientific publications has recently attracted the interest of medical researchers. However, there was no similar evaluation of errata in the field of neurosurgical literature. The aim of this study is to evaluate published errata in neurosurgical journals and to discuss the strategies that can be used in order to reduce errata frequency and to prevent their dissemination.METHODS: A literature search of error publication in 28 main neurosurgical journals was performed using PubMed (1990-2019). Extracted data included authors' name, chronology, country of origin, journal impact factor, subject area, research type, reason for published error, and source of responsibility.
    RESULTS: A total of 441 published errata were identified and analyzed. Most studies were published within the last 6 years. The majority of publications had one single reason for the published erratum. The mean amount of time between the original publication date of the paper and the published erratum was 6.72 months. The most common reason given for published erratum was that of authorship, followed by text content, figures, and tables. The mean published error rate was 0.81% (2014-2019).
    CONCLUSION: Unlike other specialties, errors are infrequently observed in neurosurgical journals and mostly without altering the interpretation of study findings. However, improvement is still needed. With the development of online journal publishers and scientific social media platforms, new strategies must be studied in order to track and correct errors better and faster. Also, authors and publishers have to work better together in order to produce high-quality scientific papers.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Correction; Neurosurgery; Publications
  5. J Nurs Adm. 2020 Jul/Aug;50(7-8):50(7-8): 402-406
    Card EB, Wells N, Abbu SN, Myers JM, Denton TD, Dubree M.
      An internal peer-reviewed journal was created to promote high-quality nursing practice, improve patient outcomes, and inspire nurses at an academic medical center. The goal of the journal was to increase nurses' utilization of evidence-based practice (EBP). The publication provides a platform that facilitates the dissemination of nursing research and supports the implementation of EBP across the organization.
  6. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020 Jul;4(5): 722-726
    Makris M.
      Coronavirus disease 2019 is the most serious pandemic of the Internet era. The number of scientific manuscripts published on the subject daily has been overwhelming. The use of Twitter enables interested health professionals and the public to stay informed.
    Keywords:  COVID‐19; SARS‐CoV‐2; Twitter; pulmonary intravascular coagulation; thrombosis
  7. Funct Plant Biol. 2020 Jul 22.
    Setter TL, Munns R, Stefanova K, Shabala S.
      Dissemination of new knowledge is arguably the most critical component of the academic activity. In this context, scientific publishing is a pinnacle of any research work. Although the scientific content has always been the primary measure of a paper's impact, by itself it may not always be sufficient for maximum impact. Good scientific writing and ability to meet priority characteristics of the target journal are essential, and inability to meet appropriate standards may jeopardise the chances for dissemination of results. This paper analyses the key features necessary for successfully publishing scientific research manuscripts. Conclusions are validated by a survey of 22 international scientific journals in agriculture and plant biology whose editors-in-chief have provided current data on key features related to manuscript acceptance or rejection. The top priorities for manuscript rejection by scientific journals in agriculture and plant biology are: (1) lack of sufficient novelty; (2) flaws in methods or data interpretation; (3) inadequate data analyses; and (4) poor critical scientific thinking. The inability to meet these requirements may result in rejection of even the best set of data. Recommendations are made for critical thinking and integration of good scientific writing with quality research. These recommendations will improve the quality of manuscripts submitted for publication to scientific journals and hence improve their likelihood of acceptance.
  8. Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7817): 493
    Tanenbaum TJ.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethics; Society
  9. J Neurosurg. 2020 Jul 24. pii: 2020.7.JNS202698. [Epub ahead of print] 1-3
    Rutka JT.
  10. Can J Nurs Res. 2020 Jul 22. 844562120938940
    Nicoll LH.
      Nursing knowledge and innovations are disseminated primarily through peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals. At the present time, there are approximately 250 journals in the profession of nursing, representing all specialties and an international, global focus. Of this group, 25 have been honored by induction into the Nursing Journal Hall of Fame, which was established by the International Academy of Nursing Editors in 2018. This article introduces the Hall of Fame and the journals that have been inducted to date. Hall of Fame journals have a sustained publication history of 50 years or more and represent excellence in nursing through the articles published and journal editorial leadership. Studying the history of this group of journals reveals trends within different specialties as well as the profession of nursing overall. For many of the journals, there were particular editors who were visionary and transformative. Knowing their stories is important for the historical record of nursing publication. Celebrating nursing journal history through the Hall of Fame and understanding the unique leadership role of nursing editors, past and present, is an important and fitting tribute to nursing knowledge during the Year of the Nurse and Nurse Midwife in 2020.
    Keywords:  International Academy of Nursing Editors; editorial leadership; nursing history; nursing knowledge; professional recognition; scholarly publication
  11. Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7817): 518-520
    Nosek BA, Errington TM.
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management
  12. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020 08;pii: S1748-6815(20)30304-1. [Epub ahead of print]73(8): 1405-1408
    Lindsay KJ, Leonard DA, Higgins GC, Robertson E, Perks G.
  13. Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7817): 497
    Keywords:  Astronomy and astrophysics; Atmospheric science; Publishing