bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒10‒18
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Med Arch. 2020 Aug;74(4): 318-322
    Duc NM, Hiep DV, Thong PM, Zunic L, Zildzic M, Donev D, Jankovic SM, Hozo I, Masic I.
      Introduction: Pseudo journals, hijacked journals, fraudulent journals, fake journals, and predatory journals waste valuable research when authors publish their studies in them.Aim: This article described novel suggested features for the identification of fraudulent journals and aimed to explain this issue to help inexperienced scientists avoid publishing in predatory journals.
    Methods: The articles related to this topic in were retrieved from PubMed and trustable Internet sources.
    Results: Unfortunately, some fake journals have made their way into reputable databases, such as PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science; thus, the serious question has been raised regarding how we should address this problematic phenomenon. We recommended 28 suggested characteristics of predatory journals for readers to take into consideration.
    Conclusion: Unaware of the detrimental effects associated with publishing in disreputable journals, inexperienced researchers can fall victim to them. Together, as both readers and writers, we should completely boycott predatory journals.
    Keywords:  Medline; Predatory journals; Pubmed; Pubmed Central; SCOPUS; Web of Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2020.74.318-322
  2. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Oct 20. pii: S0735-1097(20)36487-1. [Epub ahead of print]76(16): 1902-1904
    Fuster V, Turco JV.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.055
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 09. pii: S0895-4356(20)31137-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Faggion CM.
      
    Keywords:  Bias; ethics; methods; peer-review; standards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.001
  4. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Oct 16.
    Madhugiri VS, Nagella AB, Uppar AM.
      BACKGROUND: As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.METHODS: Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed.
    RESULTS: A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%.
    CONCLUSIONS: The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.
    Keywords:  Citations; Duplication; Google Scholar; Neurosurgery; Plagiarism; PubMed; Retraction Watch; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z
  5. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Jul;36(4): 333-334
    Yadava OP.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-00927-y
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 10. pii: S0895-4356(20)31140-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pieper D, Lorenz RC, Rombey T, Jacobs A, Rissling O, Freitag S, Matthias K.
      OBJECTIVE: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) allows for deriving the overall confidence in a systematic review. We investigated how authors derived the overall confidence rating and whether different schemes lead to different results.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We compared three different schemes (original 7-item scheme, a self-developed 5-item scheme, and the AMSTAR website) to derive the overall confidence in AMSTAR 2 using two distinct samples of SRs. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched for articles to analyze how AMSTAR 2 was applied by others.
    RESULTS: In both samples (n=60 and n=58) the Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the schemes (p < 0.001). The website scheme was the least strict one, whereas between the 5-item and 7-item scheme no differences were found in post hoc analyses. We included 53 publications applying AMSTAR 2 identified in our literature search. Only 37 of them (70%) used the original 7-item scheme. Less than half of them (18/37) reported how they derived the overall rating.
    CONCLUSION: Authors should clearly report how they have derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2. Reporting should allow for reproducing the overall ratings for editors, peer reviewers and readers.
    Keywords:  AMSTAR 2; Methodological quality; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.046
  7. Toxicol Pathol. 2020 Oct 12. 192623320964087
    Hukkanen RR, Irizarry A, Fikes JD, Schafer KA, Boyle MH.
      The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has affected business on numerous fronts in unprecedented and abrupt ways. From site closures and local "stay-at-home orders" to travel advisories and restrictions, the day-to-day practice of toxicologic pathology has been impacted dramatically and rapidly. A critical function of Toxicologic Pathologists is performing pathology peer review for nonclinical studies. Traditionally, corroborating the findings of histological assessment could be achieved through shipment of histopathological slides to the peer review pathologist, or by the peer review pathologist traveling to the location of the slides (eg, the test facility). Since early 2020, many pathologists have been unable to perform the latter due to local, regional, national, test facility, company, and/or personal restrictions. The disruption for some has been minimal, while others are working from home for the first time. We recommend that contingency plans for all peer review procedures and personnel should be in-place to accommodate sudden and unexpected workflow transitions. Now, more than ever, approaching peer reviews with enhanced adaptability will help ensure success. [Box: see text].
    Keywords:  COVID-19; challenges; communication; digital peer review; opportunities; pathology peer review; remote peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320964087
  8. Rheumatol Int. 2020 Oct 13.
    Gupta L, Gasparyan AY, Zimba O, Misra DP.
      The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.
    Keywords:  Archiving; COVID-19; Open access publishing; Periodicals as topic; Preprints; Rheumatology; Social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04718-x
  9. Rev Invest Clin. 2020 May 07. 72(4):
    Alvarado-de-la-Barrera C, Reyes-Terán G.
      The open access (OA) publishing, where a reader- pays economy has been replaced by an author-pays model, began at the end of the 20th century. This movement arose as an attempt to avoid excessive costs and copyright transfer agreements inherent to the subscription model.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.20000221
  10. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 Oct 12. pii: hpeds.2020-0100. [Epub ahead of print]
    Solano JL, Richardson T, Walker JM, Bettenhausen JL, Platt M, Riss R, Veit C, Latta G, Etzenhouser A, Herrmann LE.
      OBJECTIVES: Dissemination of rigorous, innovative educational research is key to inform best practices among the global medical education community. Although abstract presentation at professional conferences is often the first step, journal publication maximizes impact. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) educational scholarship dissemination via journal publication has not been well described. To describe educational research dissemination after PHM conference abstract submission, we identified the publication rate, median time to publication, and median publishing journal impact factor of abstracts submitted over 4 years.METHODS: Abstract data were obtained from the 2014-2017 PHM conferences and organized by presentation type (oral, poster, rejected). PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Google Scholar were queried for abstract publication evidence. We used logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the association of presentation type with the odds of publication, time to publication, and publishing journal impact factors.
    RESULTS: Of 173 submitted educational research abstracts, 56 (32%) were published. Oral abstracts had threefold greater and fivefold greater odds of publication compared to poster and rejected abstracts, respectively (odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.3-8.0; P = .011; odds ratio 5.2; 95% confidence interval 1.6-16.7; P = .003). Median time to publication did not differ between presentation types. The median journal impact factor was >2 times higher for published oral and poster abstracts than published rejected abstracts.
    CONCLUSIONS: Because abstract acceptance and presentation type may be early indicators of publication success, abstract submission to the PHM conference is a reasonable first step in disseminating educational scholarship.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-0100