bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒12‒06
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Elife. 2020 Dec 01. pii: e64910. [Epub ahead of print]9
    Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Harper DM, Weigel D, Zaidi M.
      From July 2021 eLife will only review manuscripts already published as preprints, and will focus its editorial process on producing public reviews to be posted alongside the preprints.
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; research assessment; research communication; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 04. 22(12): e22327
    Oska S, Lerma E, Topf J.
      BACKGROUND: A visual abstract is a graphic summary of a research article's question, methods, and major findings. Although they have a number of uses, visual abstracts are chiefly used to promote research articles on social media.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the use of visual abstracts increases the visibility of nephrology research shared on Twitter.
    METHODS: A prospective case-control crossover study was conducted using 40 research articles published in the American Journal of Nephrology (AJN). Each article was shared by the AJN Twitter account in 3 formats: (1) the article citation, (2) the citation with a key figure from the article, and (3) the citation with a visual abstract. Tweets were spaced 2 weeks apart to allow washout of the previous tweet, and the order of the tweets was randomized. Dissemination was measured via retweets, views, number of link clicks, and Altmetric scores.
    RESULTS: Tweets that contained a visual abstract had more than twice as many views as citation-only tweets (1351, SD 1053 vs 639, SD 343) and nearly twice as many views as key figure tweets (1351, SD 1053 vs 732, SD 464). Visual abstract tweets had 5 times the engagements of citation-only tweets and more than 3.5 times the engagements of key figure tweets. Visual abstract tweets were also associated with greater increases in Altmetric scores as compared to citation-only tweets (2.20 vs 1.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: The use of visual abstracts increased visibility of research articles on Twitter, resulting in a greater number of views, engagements, and retweets. Visual abstracts were also associated with increased Altmetric scores as compared to citation-only tweets. These findings support the broader use of visual abstracts in the scientific community. Journals should consider visual abstracts as valuable tools for research dissemination.
    Keywords:  Twitter; dissemination; science communication; social media; visual abstract
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/22327
  3. Acta Orthop. 2020 Dec 02. 1-4
    Steffens ANV, Langerhuizen DWG, Doornberg JN, Ring D, Janssen SJ.
      Background and purpose - There is ongoing debate as to whether commercial funding influences reporting of medical studies. We asked: Is there a difference in reported tones between abstracts, introductions, and discussions of orthopedic journal studies that were commercially funded and those that were not commercially funded? Methods - We conducted a systematic PubMed search to identify commercially funded studies published in 20 orthopedic journals between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2019. We identified commercial funding of studies by including in our search the names of 10 medical device companies with the largest revenue in 2019. Commercial funding was designated when either the study or 1 or more of the authors received funding from a medical device company directly related to the content of the study. We matched 138 commercially funded articles 1 to 1 with 138 non-commercially funded articles with the same study design, published in the same journal, within a time range of 5 years. The IBM Watson Tone Analyzer was used to determine emotional tones (anger, fear, joy, and sadness) and language style (analytical, confident, and tentative). Results - For abstract and introduction sections, we found no differences in reported tones between commercially funded and non-commercially funded studies. Fear tones (non-commercially funded studies 5.1%, commercially funded studies 0.7%, p = 0.04), and analytical tones (non-commercially funded studies 95%, commercially funded studies 88%, p = 0.03) were more common in discussions of studies that were not commercially funded. Interpretation - Commercially funded studies have comparable tones to non-commercially funded studies in the abstract and introduction. In contrast, the discussion of non-commercially funded studies demonstrated more fear and analytical tones, suggesting them to be more tentative, accepting of uncertainty, and dispassionate. As text analysis tools become more sophisticated and mainstream, it might help to discern commercial bias in scientific reports.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1853341
  4. J BUON. 2020 Sep-Oct;25(5):25(5): 2136-2140
    Moris D.
      In medical science, publication record is considered to be a fundamental criterion to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the reputation of institutions and individual scientists. In current academia, thousands of scientists demonstrate a hyperprolific academic behavior that is the resultant of multiple individual characteristics that can vary from extraordinary ability and teamwork to unjustified and unethical co-authorship. Editors, reviewers and readers should have high expectations from these authors in terms of research quality and ethos.
  5. J BUON. 2020 Sep-Oct;25(5):25(5): 2523-2524
    Moris D.
      
  6. Scientometrics. 2020 Nov 21. 1-9
    Moradi S, Abdi S.
      This commentary identifies and characterizes correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications with a scientometric approach by considering their rate of growth, reasons for correction, the time-span between publishing the original and corrected versions, as well as their citation status in four questions. It also suggestions to solve the current issues regarding indexing, retrieving, publishing, and research evaluation.
    Keywords:  Correction; Erratum; Indexing; Pandemic; Papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03787-w
  7. Bioscience. 2020 Nov;70(11): 1015-1026
    Efroymson RA, Peterson MJ.
      Benefits accrue to scientists, resource managers, companies, and policymakers when environmental scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. However, environmental scientists and practitioners face challenges, including the sometimes low value placed on journal articles, institutional vested interests in outcomes, and the changing priorities of employers and project sponsors. Confidentiality agreements can also lead scientists to assume publication is not an option. Case studies may be viewed by potential authors as too routine for peer-reviewed journals. On the basis of 30 years of experience, we suggest that publishing hurdles can be overcome and that environmental scientists have a range of options. The topics of manuscripts can include not only results from case studies and perspectives based on them but also byproducts of assessments, including definitions, plans, monitoring methods and models, and decision frameworks. Environmental scientists have unique opportunities to move science forward with their practical knowledge if they can move across the institutional, logistical, data-related, and content-related hurdles.
    Keywords:  assessment; environmental management; environmental science; monitoring; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa107
  8. Med J Aust. 2020 Nov 29.
    Whitmore KA, Laupland KB, Vincent CM, Edwards FA, Reade MC.
      
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Infectious diseases; Peer review; Publishing; Respiratory tract infections
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50855
  9. Nature. 2020 Nov 30.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03394-y
  10. J Allied Health. 2020 ;49(4): 233
    Elwood TW.
      Data-Sharing Rule Finalized: Beginning in January 2023, all biomedical researchers newly funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will be required to share data from their studies or explain why they are unable to do so. The new policy updates a 2003 requirement. Challenges in Achieving Replicability: The replicability of evidence for scientific claims is an important element in achieving scientific progress. Knowledge accumulation depends on reliable past findings to generate new ideas and extensions that can advance understanding. Disappearing Journals: Scholarly journals are supposed to provide a lasting record of science. Over the past two decades, however, 176 open-access journals and many papers appearing in them have disappeared from the Internet. The Conundrum of Academic Publishing: Academic publishing is in flux. Historically, dissemination of research through academic journals has been based on paid library or institutional subscriptions, with most content held behind a paywall. That is now changing with a global call for open access, a model of scholarly communication intended to increase accessibility of research results to the reader.
  11. Nurs Ethics. 2020 Dec 03. 969733020968215
    Gabrielsson S, Eriksson S, Godskesen T.
      BACKGROUND: Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.AIM: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.
    DESIGN: Quantitative descriptive case study.
    PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.
    ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.
    RESULTS: Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.
    DISCUSSION: Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.
    CONCLUSION: While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; predatory journals; publication ethics; research dissemination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020968215
  12. Lab Med. 2020 Dec 01. pii: lmaa097. [Epub ahead of print]
    Zhao Z, Sacks DB.
      
    Keywords:  analytical characteristics; biomarker; guideline; reporting; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmaa097
  13. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020 ;13 1669-1676
    Al-Ebbini L, Khabour OF, Alzoubi KH, Alkaraki AK.
      Background: Data sharing is an encouraged practice to support research in all fields. For that purpose, it is important to examine perceptions and concerns of researchers about biomedical data sharing, which was investigated in the current study.Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey study that was distributed among biomedical researchers in Jordan, as an example of developing countries. The study survey consisted of questions about demographics and about respondent's attitudes toward sharing of biomedical data.
    Results: Among study participants, 46.9% (n=82) were positive regarding making their research data available to the public, whereas 53.1% refused the idea. The reasons for refusing to publicly share their data included "lack of regulations" (33.5%), "access to research data should be limited to the research team" (29.5%), "no place to deposit the data" (6.5%), and "lack of funding for data deposition" (6.0%). Agreement with the idea of making data available was associated with academic rank (P=0.003). Moreover, gender (P-value=0.043) and number of publications (P-value=0.005) were associated with a time frame for data sharing (ie, agreeing to share data before vs after publication).
    Conclusion: About half of the respondents reported a positive attitude toward biomedical data sharing. Proper regulations and facilitation data deposition can enhance data sharing in Jordan.
    Keywords:  Jordan; data sharing; ethical issues; responsible conduct of research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S284294
  14. Nature. 2020 Dec 04.
    Tay A.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x
  15. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2020 Nov 24. 1-4
    Khadilkar S.
      I complete my tenure as editor in chief in January 2021, and here I bring to you the last editorial of my tenure. I have enjoyed every moment of this long association with the journal. I have done my best to improve the quality of this journal in terms of readership, citations, visibility, academic recognition, promoting good quality research and publications. Many new changes were brought in during my tenure including the publishing e-book of our journal which has furthered the go green initiative of FOGSI.
    Keywords:  Editor in chief; Signing off
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01402-9
  16. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov 20. pii: S2468-7847(20)30354-8. [Epub ahead of print]50(1): 101984
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101984
  17. Am J Occup Ther. 2020 Nov/Dec;74(6):74(6): 7406070010p1-7406070010p7
    Reynolds S.
      Throughout this challenging year, the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) has stayed committed to publishing high-quality research so that occupational therapy professionals can make informed decisions about best practice. As we look to the future with a new Editor-in-Chief, our goals are to remain the leading journal for our profession while enhancing our engagement with readers, improving our review process, and ensuring that a diverse group of reviewers and associate editors are able to assume leadership positions with the journal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.746002