bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒10‒04
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Nature. 2019 Oct 04.
    Mehta D.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02960-3
  2. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(10): e0239598
    Hardwicke TE, Goodman SN.
      Scientific claims in biomedical research are typically derived from statistical analyses. However, misuse or misunderstanding of statistical procedures and results permeate the biomedical literature, affecting the validity of those claims. One approach journals have taken to address this issue is to enlist expert statistical reviewers. How many journals do this, how statistical review is incorporated, and how its value is perceived by editors is of interest. Here we report an expanded version of a survey conducted more than 20 years ago by Goodman and colleagues (1998) with the intention of characterizing contemporary statistical review policies at leading biomedical journals. We received eligible responses from 107 of 364 (28%) journals surveyed, across 57 fields, mostly from editors in chief. 34% (36/107) rarely or never use specialized statistical review, 34% (36/107) used it for 10-50% of their articles and 23% used it for all articles. These numbers have changed little since 1998 in spite of dramatically increased concern about research validity. The vast majority of editors regarded statistical review as having substantial incremental value beyond regular peer review and expressed comparatively little concern about the potential increase in reviewing time, cost, and difficulty identifying suitable statistical reviewers. Improved statistical education of researchers and different ways of employing statistical expertise are needed. Several proposals are discussed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239598
  3. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020 Sep 23.
    Kamiński M, Szymańska C, Nowak JK.
      Twitter has considerable capacity for health education and proves to be an efficient and accessible communication tool in the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although many stakeholders saturate Twitter with COVID-19-related information, it remains unknown who disseminates information most efficaciously. COVID-19-related tweets were obtained from Twitter accounts of health agencies, governmental authorities, universities, scientific journals, medical associations, and celebrities. Posts' impact was measured with the nominal and relative (%followers) number of likes and retweets. A sentiment analysis was conducted.We have identified 17,331 COVID-19-related tweets posted by 338 accounts in >4 months since the virus began to spread. The largest number of likes was received by tweets of celebrities (median nominal, relative likes; 14,918, 0.036 percent), politicians (259, 0.174 percent), and health agencies (231, 0.007 percent). Most retweeted messages were also posted by celebrities (2,366, 0.005 percent), health agencies (130, 0.004 percent), and politicians (55, 0.041 percent). Retweets and likes peaked in March 2020, and the overall sentiment of the tweets was growing steadily. Whereas celebrities and politicians posted positive messages, the scientific and health authorities often employed a negative vocabulary. The posts with positive sentiment gained more likes and relative likes than nonpositive. During the pandemic, the tweets of celebrities and politicians related to COVID-19 outperform those coming from health and scientific institutions. Active engagement of Twitter influencers may help key messages go viral.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Twitter; coronavirus; sentiment; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0336
  4. Trials. 2020 Oct 01. 21(1): 824
    Lombard N, Gasmi A, Sulpice L, Boudjema K, Naudet F, Bergeat D.
      OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical journals' position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.METHODS: Only "SURGICAL" journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a "prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy", a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.
    RESULTS: Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48-3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5-20.75]. The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41). No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A "prospective registration of clinical trials requirement" was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.
    CONCLUSION: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.
    Keywords:  CONSORT statement; Conflict of interest; Data sharing; Randomised controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04756-7
  5. Nature. 2020 Sep 30.
    Mallapaty S.
      
    Keywords:  Institutions; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02708-4
  6. J Exp Med. 2020 Mar 02. pii: e20200291. [Epub ahead of print]217(3):
    .
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20200291
  7. Malays Orthop J. 2020 Jul;14(2): 1-6
    Ibrahim S, Saw A.
      Predatory journals and conferences have little or no peer review. Their raison d'être is for making money through the article processing charges and the conference registration fees. Without a critical evaluation, predatory journals publishing flawed results and conclusions would cloud the existing scientific literature. Predatory conferences are the offshoots of predatory publishing. The conferences are not organised by learned societies, but by profit-making event organisers. There is a need for awareness among researchers and clinicians regarding predatory publishing. The scourge of predatory publishing and conferencing should be more often highlighted during scientific meetings and publication courses.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2007.003
  8. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2019 Dec 30. 57(6): 334-336
    Rivas-Ruiz R.
      National medical journals are important because they focus on local clinical problems, peer communication, and fostering critical reading among healthcare workers. The actors involved in the development of the journals must fulfill their purposes to improve the quality of the publications of the national journals and contribute to improve the quality of care.
    Keywords:  Journal Article; Journal Impact Factor; Peer Review, Research; Research; Scholarly Communication
  9. J Acute Med. 2019 Dec 01. 9(4): 153-160
    Chou YM, Lee CH.
      Background: Scientific publications and academic research are objective indicators that provide dynamic views of the evolution of emergency medicine (EM). This study is aimed to evaluate the academic contribution of Taiwan emergency departments (EDs) by analyzing scientific publications.Methods: This is an observational study and all publications between 2012 and 2017 were retrieved from the Scopus database. The EM journals were adopted from the 2016 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category of EM. Three groups of publications were enrolled: (1) publications with first authors affiliated with Taiwan EDs in EM journals; (2) publications with first authors affiliated with Taiwan EDs in non-EM journals; (3) publications with first authors affiliated with Taiwan other than EDs in EM journals. Data regarding the name and category of the publishing journal, the publication year, the publication type, and the number of citations were collected for further analysis. The publication and category numbers were also merged with previous study to obtain a longer trend analysis from 1992.
    Results: A total of 291 publications affiliated with Taiwan EDs were published in EM journals and 697 publications in 275 non-EM journals. A total of 286 publications in EM journals affiliated with Taiwan but other than ED. The trend of publication numbers in all three groups and category numbers since 1992 were increasing (all p < 0.001). Publication numbers in non-EM journals increased the most and obtained the highest cited times. The 275 non-EM journals were classified into 69 categories. The leading five categories were Medicine, General & Internal, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Surgery, Infectious Diseases, Geriatrics & Gerontology.
    Conclusions: The importance of researches originating from Taiwan EDs has been increasingly recognized by both the global EM community and by other medical specialties during the past 25 years. The advancement of academic contribution by Taiwan EDs is evident from the perspectives of quantity and breadth.
    Keywords:  Journal Citation Reports; Scopus database; emergency medicine; scientific publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6705/j.jacme.201912_9(4).0001
  10. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020 Sep;12(9): e857-e863
    Bhalla VK, Chockattu SJ.
      Background: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (J Clin Exp Dent; JCED) is an English language journal published by the Spanish Society of Oral Surgery, and has been online since 2009. It is indexed in PubMed Central and Scopus since 2012, with monthly publications since 2016. The purpose of this article was to review and analyse the publications in this journal since its inception, over a period of 11 years (2009-2019).Material and Methods: This paper assessed the number, type and subjects of the articles published in the journal over 11 years. The institutions of the first authors, number of PubMed citations and the Hirsch (h5) index was assessed and analysed.
    Results: The manuscripts published in JCED have gradually increased over the years, with Original research articles accounting for the bulk of contributions. The journal publishes articles mainly from the subjects of Oral Pathology and Operative Dentistry and Endodontics. Articles published in JCED are indexed in PubMed Central (since 2012), Scopus, DOI system, and Google Scholar. A country-wise mapping of the (first) author's institutions revealed significant contributions from researchers from all over the world. With an h5 index of 26, the journal was ranked among the top six multispeciality journals. The most cited articles were the literature reviews on common oral lesions (recurrent apthous stomatitis and candidiasis).
    Conclusions: The journal has contributed to the growth of scientific literature pertaining to subjects from all the fields of dentistry. Over the past 11 years, JCED has served as a platform for large number of manuscripts in all the disciples of dentistry, from researches all over the world. Key words:Publication trends, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, Bibliometrics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.56640
  11. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020 Oct;8(8): 981-983
    Siau K, El-Omar E.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640620956921