bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒08‒09
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Acad Radiol. 2020 Aug 04. pii: S1076-6332(20)30407-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Capizzano AA.
  2. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 9
    Gerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, Choi CY, Clements JC, Rash JA.
      Background: The process of peer-review in academia has attracted criticism surrounding issues of bias, fairness, and professionalism; however, frequency of occurrence of such comments is unknown.Methods: We evaluated 1491 sets of reviewer comments from the fields of "Ecology and Evolution" and "Behavioural Medicine," of which 920 were retrieved from the online review repository Publons and 571 were obtained from six early career investigators. Comment sets were coded for the occurrence of "unprofessional comments" and "incomplete, inaccurate or unsubstantiated critiques" using an a-prior rubric based on our published research. Results are presented as absolute numbers and percentages.
    Results: Overall, 12% (179) of comment sets included at least one unprofessional comment towards the author or their work, and 41% (611) contained incomplete, inaccurate of unsubstantiated critiques (IIUC).
    Conclusions: The large number of unprofessional comments, and IIUCs observed could heighten psychological distress among investigators, particularly those at an early stage in their career. We suggest that development and adherence to a universally agreed upon reviewer code of conduct is necessary to improve the quality and professional experience of peer review.
    Keywords:  Biology; Peer review; Psychology
  3. EMBO Rep. 2020 Aug 04. e51278
    Reincke CM, Bredenoord AL, van Mil MH.
      The 'one-way' expert model of science communication is out of date. The new dialogue model requires from scientists more than just providing expert knowledge to the publics.
  4. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Aug 03.
    Mitchell NS, Stolzmann K, Benning LV, Wormwood JB, Linsky AM.
    Keywords:  health services research; meeting abstract; peer review; reproducibility of results
  5. Nature. 2019 Aug 07.
    D'Agostino S.
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Publishing
  6. Nurs Stand. 2020 Aug 03.
    Calbraith D.
      RATIONALE AND KEY POINTS: Conference posters can be used by nurses to disseminate the findings of studies, audits or service improvement projects. Despite the lack of robust evidence on what an optimal poster should include, the literature contains several sources of useful information on the topic. A conference poster requires thorough and systematic preparation; authors will need to determine what message they want to convey, what the aim of their poster is, and how they will ensure precision, clarity, brevity and visual appeal. This article provides a step-by-step guide to assist nurses in developing optimal poster content and design, and in delivering effective poster presentations. REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY: 'How to' articles can help to update your practice and ensure it remains evidence based. Apply this article to your practice. Reflect on and write a short account of.
    Keywords:  career pathways; communication; interpersonal skills; mature students; methodology; presentation skills; professional; research; students
  7. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Aug 02.
    Solomon DH, Bucala R, Kaplan MJ, Nigrovic PA.
      Some in the medical publishing world have observed an "infodemic" occurring alongside the pandemic. One might define an infodemic as a contagious disease infecting our information culture. As the Editors of A&R, tasked with conducting, reviewing, reporting, and translating science to the rheumatic disease community, we agree with this diagnosis. Herein, we reflect on how the pandemic has impacted A&R, the medical publishing world, and how we may best engage our community to navigate current challenges.
  8. Addict Behav. 2020 Jul 15. pii: S0306-4603(20)30690-0. [Epub ahead of print]112 106560
    Adewumi MT, Vo N, Tritz D, Beaman J, Vassar M.
      BACKGROUND: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of reproducibility in the field of addiction science.DESIGN: Cross-sectional design.
    MEASUREMENTS: The National Library of Medicine catalog was searched for all journals using the subject terms tag: Substance-Related Disorders [ST]. Journals were then searched via PubMed to identify publications from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018; 300 publications were randomly selected from among those identified. A pilot-tested Google form containing reproducibility/transparency characteristics was used for data extraction in a duplicated and blinded fashion by two investigators.
    FINDINGS: Slightly more than half of the publications were open access (152/300, 50.70%). Few publications had pre-registration (7/244, 2.87%), material availability (2/237, 0.84%), protocol availability (3/244, 1.23%), data availability (28/244, 11.48%), or analysis script availability (2/244, 0.82%). Most publications provided a conflict of interest statement (221/293, 75.43%) and funding sources (268/293, 91.47%). One replication study was reported (1/244, 0.4%).
    CONCLUSION: Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are lacking, thus, there is room for improvement. In particular, investigators should pre-register studies prior to commencement. Researchers should also make the materials, data, and analysis script publicly available. Further, individuals should be transparent about funding sources for the project and financial conflicts of interest. Research stakeholders should work together toward improvements on these matters. With such protections, the field of addiction medicine can better disseminate the information necessary to treat patients.
    Keywords:  Addiction; Evidence-based research; Open access; Replication; Reproducibility; Transparency
  9. Pulmonology. 2020 Jul 29. pii: S2531-0437(20)30147-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Smith CA, Nolan J, Tritz DJ, Heavener TE, Pelton J, Cook K, Vassar M.
      BACKGROUND: Study reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study improve its potential for reproduction. Efforts to reproduce noteworthy studies in the biomedical sciences have resulted in an overwhelming majority of them being found to be unreplicable, causing concern for the integrity of research in other fields, including medical specialties. Here, we analyzed the reproducibility of studies in the field of pulmonology.METHODS: 500 pulmonology articles were randomly selected from an initial PubMed search for data extraction. Two authors scoured these articles for reproducibility indicators including materials, protocols, raw data, analysis scripts, inclusion in systematic reviews, and citations by replication studies as well as other factors of research transparency including open accessibility, funding source and competing interest disclosures, and study preregistration.
    FINDINGS: Few publications included statements regarding materials (10%), protocols (1%), data (15%), and analysis script (0%) availability. Less than 10% indicated preregistration. More than half of the publications analyzed failed to provide a funding statement. Conversely, 63% of the publications were open access and 73% included a conflict of interest statement.
    INTERPRETATION: Overall, our study indicates pulmonology research is currently lacking in efforts to increase replicability. Future studies should focus on providing sufficient information regarding materials, protocols, raw data, and analysis scripts, among other indicators, for the sake of clinical decisions that depend on replicable or refutable results from the primary literature.
    Keywords:  Evidence-based medicine; Pulmonology; Reproducibility of results
  10. Heliyon. 2020 Jul;6(7): e04522
    Vuong TT, Ho MT, Nguyen MH, Nguyen TT, Nguyen TD, Nguyen TL, Luong AP, Vuong QH.
      Open Access (OA) publishing, with ambitious movements such as Plan S, is engendering radical changes among academic publishers. Emerging countries need to keep publishing as well as adopt open access to catch up with the changes. Using exclusive data from the Social Sciences & Humanities Peer Awards (SSHPA) database, the study employed both descriptive statistics and a Bayesian linear regression model to examine the journals and publishers in which Vietnamese social scientists published during the period 2008-2019, and the potential of pursuing the OA movement in Vietnam. We found an increasing diversification in the publishing sources of Vietnamese social science researchers with growth rates of 9.8% and 14.1% per annum in the number of publishers and journals, respectively. Given that the proportion of Gold OA articles had a fourfold increase over the examined period, it seems that the Vietnamese academic community is adopting OA. Furthermore, Bayesian analysis results hint at positive associations of internal and external collaborative power (number of domestic and foreign authors, respectively) with the decision to publish in OA (β b_TotalVN_OpenAccess = 0.22; β b_TotalForeign_OpenAccess = 0.15). The results and its implications suggest that Vietnamese policymakers and university director boards should facilitate as well as control the quality of the scientific publishing and the OA movement.
    Keywords:  Information science; Open access; Scientific publishing; Social science; Social sciences and humanities; Vietnam
  11. Heliyon. 2020 Jul;6(7): e04426
    Spitale G.
      Scientific publications have become the currency of Academia, hence the concept of 'publish or perish'. But there are consequences: the amount of existing literature and its proliferation rate have reached the point where keeping pace is just impossible. If this is true in general, it becomes a huge issue in interdisciplinary fields such as bioethics where knowing the state of the art in more than one single discipline is a concrete necessity. If we accept the idea of building new science on an exhaustive comprehension of existing knowledge, a radical change is needed. Smart iterative search strategies, frequency analysis and text mining, techniques described in this paper, can't be a long run solution. But they might serve as a useful coping strategy.
    Keywords:  Content analysis; Data mining; Information extraction; Information management; Information science; Information systems management; Information technology; Knowledge representation; Publications' proliferation; Search strategies; Text mining; Topic tracking
  12. Acta Ortop Mex. 2019 Nov-Dec;33(6):33(6): 351
    Encalada-Díaz MI.
      No Abstract available.
  13. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2020 Jul 30. pii: S0928-0987(20)30290-6. [Epub ahead of print] 105501
    Alsamil AM, Giezen TJ, Egberts TC, Leufkens HG, Vulto AG, van der Plas MR, Gardarsdottir H.
      Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009-2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015-2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclonal antibody (mAbs) guidline in 2012 and more publications on mAbs later on when compared to earlier period. Biosimilarity assessments of QAs have been published in peer-reviewed publications for about 60% of approved biosimilars. Publishing biosimilarity assessments and reporting QAs over time appears to be affected by regulatory actions that occurred in 2012-2015, including regulatory approval and development of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. Availability of a complete, publicly accessible and unbiased biosimilarity assessment of QAs, as part of a trusted and transparent regulatory process, will contribute to increased confidence and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice. Dynamics of scientific publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs in relation to the year of regulatory approval of biosimilars by EMA and/or US-FDA Footnote EMA: European Medicine Agency; US-FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration; EMA Guideline on monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) revision 0: Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies - non-clinical and clinical issues revision 0; EMA Quality Guideline (revision 0): Guideline on similar biological medicinal products cntaining biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues (revision 1); US-FDA Quality Guideline revision 0: Quality considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity of a therapeutic protein product to a reference product; guidance for industry (revision 0).
    Keywords:  Analytical Comparison; Biosimilar; Biosimilarity Assessment; Quality Attribute; Recombinant Therapeutic Protein
  14. Surgery. 2020 Aug 01. pii: S0039-6060(20)30345-7. [Epub ahead of print]