bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒11‒29
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Nov-Dec;36(7):36(7): 1441-1448
    Rokni MB, Bizhani N, Habibzadeh F, Farhud DD, Mohammadi N, Alizadeh A, Rokni L.
      Background and Objective: We conducted this study to assess the prevalence of plagiarism and to shed light on some dark aspects of this issue. The main objectives included to find out the etiology, prevalence, and detection of various forms plagiarism.Methods: In this Cross-sectional study we used a questionnaire, face-to-face interview, analyzing the present notifications and codes, websites, and literature review. The current study was conducted throughout Iran from 2017-2018. Those associated with scientific journalism, academic staffs, and authors were interviewed or asked to fill out a prepared questionnaire.
    Results: Nine hundred seventy nine questionnaires were circulated. Out of this 706 (72.1%) were completed and returned. Those with a master degree were most cooperative in filling out the questionnaires (36.4%); followed by Assistant Professors (29.6%). About 74.1% of respondents, had not participated in any educational workshops on plagiarism (P<0.001) while 10.8% had not heard anything about plagiarism (P<0.001). As regards correct reply as for definition and detecting plagiarism; 91.1%, 40.8%, 48.4% and 57.9% could reply correctly (P<0.001). Forty-one-point one percent of the participants believed that reprimand would be the best punishment. The percentage of plagiarism as per people associated in journal administration, was 22.9%; based on experts' opinions, it was 30.0%; and based on analysis of some journals published in Iran, it was 25.5%.
    Conclusion: We found a noticeable prevalence of plagiarism in Iran. Many factors are involved in this misconduct; most important being the need for academic staff and students to publish e more papers regardless of their quality to meet some of the academic requirements. Considering the high rank of Iran in terms of scientific growth worldwide, it is expected from the regulatory authorities to monitor all aspects of scientific misconducts in medical journalism.
    Keywords:  Iran; Plagiarism; Publication ethics; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.7.3456
  2. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2020 Dec;118(6): 433-437
    Serra ME.
      The life-cycle of a manuscript from writing to publication is not usually taught during health care professionals' training. This article reviews the process that goes from from the authors' decision to communicate to its eventual publication, detailing practical aspects to be considered in each step. The responsibilities of the different roles involved are specified: author, editor, and reviewer. International guidelines supporting the writing of medical-scientific papers are also described.
    Keywords:  editing; journal article; medical manuscript; peer review of research papers; periodic publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2020.eng.433
  3. BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 24. 10(11): e039687
    Kawczak S, Mustafa S.
      OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the learning outcomes for peer reviewers participating in a manuscript review continuing medical education (CME) process. CME from serving as a peer reviewer is one of the many benefits of serving as a reviewer.DESIGN: This is a descriptive study retrospectively analysing learning outcomes self-reported by peer reviewers from 2013 to 2017 using a CME assessment framework.
    SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant data are from 1985 peer reviewers who completed 2413 manuscript reviews over 32 medical journals from 2013 to 2017 and completed the CME process after their prepublication manuscript review. 417 reviewer responses were practice behaviour change(s) that were studied in depth using an assessment framework on changes in knowledge, competence and performance.
    RESULTS: The results show positive learning outcomes reported by reviewers at the knowledge, competence and performance behaviour levels as a result of reviewing manuscripts. Higher levels of learning outcomes are more frequently achieved when reviewers consult multiple sources when conducting reviews. Reviewer demographics, such as gender or years of experience, did not have a significant association to learning outcomes.
    CONCLUSIONS: Manuscript Review CME is an effective way that learning within the peer reviewer process can occur and helps reviewers gain knowledge, improve competence and make changes to their professional practice at all stages of their careers. Journal publishers should emphasise and support reviewers through offering CME to reviewers and encourage consultation of multiple sources when conducting reviews, which is an added benefit and resource to help professionals continue their development.
    Keywords:  education & training (see medical education & training); medical education & training; natural science disciplines; statistics & research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039687
  4. Insights Imaging. 2020 Nov 27. 11(1): 125
    Kwee TC, Adams HJA, Kwee RM.
      OBJECTIVE: To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals.METHODS: Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included.
    RESULTS: Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal's impact factor.
    CONCLUSION: Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.
    Keywords:  Bias; Journal article; Medical imaging; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00921-3
  5. Eur Heart J. 2020 Nov 23. pii: ehaa856. [Epub ahead of print]
    Van Spall HGC, Whitelaw S.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa856
  6. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020 Nov 24. 1-2
    Rogers B.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2020.0214
  7. Proteomes. 2020 Nov 23. pii: E35. [Epub ahead of print]8(4):
    O'Rourke MB, Padula MP.
      Peer review is the way in which we, as scientists, criticise, check, and confirm the findings of our colleagues. The process of peer review relies on individuals in all fields applying their particular expertise and determining if they agree with the findings submitted for publication. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication that draw from a range of disparate and complementary fields. This has created the curious situation where an expert may be requested to review a manuscript that is only partially within their immediate field of expertise. The issue that arises is that, without full knowledge of the data, techniques, methodologies, and principles that are presented, it is difficult for reviewers to make properly informed decisions, especially when it can take an entire career to reach that specific level of expertise in a single field. From this perspective, we explore these issues and also provide a commentary on how peer review could evolve in the context of a changing cross-disciplinarily-focused scientific landscape.
    Keywords:  MALDI-MSI; complex analysis; expertise; hybrid data; tissue imaging
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/proteomes8040035
  8. BMC Vet Res. 2020 Nov 26. 16(1): 460
    Zhao B, Jiang Y, Zhang T, Shang Z, Zhang W, Hu K, Chen F, Mei F, Gao Q, Zhao L, Kwong JSW, Ma B.
      BACKGROUND: In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines.RESULTS: The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited ≤5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%.
    CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.
    Keywords:  ARRIVE; Animal experiments; Reporting quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02664-1
  9. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Nov 23. 35(45): e398
    Gaur PS, Zimba O, Agarwal V, Gupta L.
      The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed by the data analysis and choosing target journals. While providing a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios most conducive to carrying out a survey, the role of ethical approval, survey validation and pilot testing, this brief delves deeper into the survey designs, methods of dissemination, the ways to secure and maintain data anonymity, the various analytical approaches, the reporting techniques and the process of choosing the appropriate journal. Further, the authors analyze retracted survey-based studies and the reasons for the same. This review article intends to guide authors to improve the quality of survey-based research by describing the essential tools and means to do the same with the hope to improve the utility of such studies.
    Keywords:  Data Analysis; Pandemics; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Surveys and Questionnaires
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e398
  10. J AOAC Int. 2020 Sep 01. 103(5): 1424-1425
    Shayanfar A.
      Some researchers, in their published articles in authentic scientific journals, plot calibration curves using bar charts instead of scatter plots using common software such as Excel. Bar charts can significantly affect the apparent linear range and sensitivity of the developed method, and using bar charts as calibration curves gives the wrong results. Therefore, this issue should be considered by researchers in developing analytical methods.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoacint/qsaa023
  11. Wellcome Open Res. 2020 ;5 270
    Bull S, Bhagwandin N.
      The importance of data sharing and biobanking are increasingly being recognised in global health research. Such practices are perceived to have the potential to promote science by maximising the utility of data and samples. However, they also raise ethical challenges which can be exacerbated by existing disparities in power, infrastructure and capacity. The Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR) convened in Stellenbosch, South Africa in November 2018, to explore the ethics of data sharing and biobanking in health research. Ninety-five participants from 35 countries drew on case studies and their experiences with sharing in their discussion of issues relating to respecting research participants and communities, promoting equitable sharing, and international and national approaches to governing data sharing and biobanking. In this editorial we will briefly review insights relating to each of these three themes.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; LMIC; biobanking; ethics; global health; governance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16351.1
  12. Health Care Manage Rev. 2021 Jan/Mar;46(1):46(1): 1
    Hearld LR, Rathert C.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000307
  13. Nature. 2020 Nov 23.
    Perkel JM, Van Noorden R.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Publishing; Software
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03277-2
  14. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Nov 21. 21(1): 771
    Fitzpatrick CM, Athwal A.
      Twenty years ago, on October 23, the first article published by BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders appeared free online. Over 5700 publications later, we celebrate our anniversary as the largest Open Access journal in the 'Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine' and 'Rheumatology' fields. Our 'open, inclusive, and trusted' ethos, along with our efficient and robust peer review services, are recognized by the musculoskeletal field.The early pioneers of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders pushed the Open Access publishing model, in order to better support the needs of both the clinical and research communities. We pride ourselves on the continual innovation of author services, data transparency, and peer review models. These advances would not have been possible without your efforts - so a massive thank you to all the authors, editorial teams, and reviewers who have contributed to our success. Excellent reviewers are the nucleus of any thriving journal, and we have been lucky to collaborate with so many talents.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03785-2
  15. Br J Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 25. 1-3
    Upthegrove R, de Cates A, Shuttleworth A, Tracy DK, Broome MR, Lingford-Hughes A.
      Women in academic publishing and academic psychiatry face many challenges of gender inequality, including significant pay differentials, poor visibility in senior positions and a male-dominated hierarchical system. We discuss this problem and outline how the BJPsych plans to tackle these issues it in its own publishing.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; education and training; equality; gender; psychiatry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.192
  16. Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7835): S112
    Woolston C.
      
    Keywords:  Epigenetics; Institutions; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03321-1