bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒12‒27
seven papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Nov;pii: S2589-9333(20)30170-1. [Epub ahead of print]2(4): 100201
      BACKGROUND: The publication of invalid scientific findings may have profound implications on medical practice. As the incidence of article retractions has increased over the last 2 decades, organizations have formed, including Retraction Watch, to improve the transparency of scientific publishing. At present, the incidence of article retraction in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature is unclear.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number of retracted articles within the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases and examine reasons for retraction.
    STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases was performed to identify retracted articles in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from indexation through December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the number of identified articles and reason for retraction. Within PubMed, articles were identified using a medical subheading search for articles categorized as withdrawn or retracted. In addition, the Retraction Watch database was queried and nonobstetrical articles were excluded. The reason for retraction was classified according to the categories listed in Retraction Watch. The subject matter was classified on the basis of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine criteria. Data were collected from retracted articles for author name, country, journal name and impact factor, year of publication and retraction, study type, and response of the publishing journal. Descriptive statistics were performed.
    RESULTS: Of the 519 obstetrics and gynecology articles in Retraction Watch, 122 (23.5%) were specific to the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine specialties. In addition, 39 (32.0%) were identified from PubMed, all of which were included in Retraction Watch. There was a median time to retraction of 1 (range, 0-17) year, with a median of 3 citations per article (range, 0-145). In addition, the median journal impact factor was 2.2 (range, 0.1-27.6), with median first and senior author Hirsch index values of 6.0 and 13.5, respectively. Most articles were original research (n=80; 65.6%), specifically retrospective studies (n=11; 9.0%), case reports (n=19; 15.6%), prospective studies (n=18; 14.8%), randomized controlled trials (n=11; 9%), basic science (n=18; 14.8%), and systematic review or meta-analysis (n=3; 2.5%). Of eligible articles, 32 (26.2%) were published in journals with an impact factor ≥4, and 21 articles (17.2%) were published in the top 10 leading impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals. Most retractions were for content-related issues (n=87; 71.3%), including 21.3% (n=26) for article duplication, 18.9% (n=23) for plagiarism, and 16.4% (n=20) for errors in results or methods. Additional reasons included author misconduct (n=12; 9.8%), nonreproducible results (n=11; 9.0%), and falsification (n=8; 6.6%). The most common journal response was an issued statement of retraction (n=82; 67.2%). Lack of retraction notice and limited to no information provided by the publishing journal occurred in 19 retracted articles (15.6%).
    CONCLUSION: In the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature, retraction of scientific articles is increasing and is most often related to scientific misconduct, including article duplication and plagiarism. Improved prevention and detection are warranted by journals and healthcare institutions to ensure that invalid findings are not perpetuated in the medical literature, thereby avoiding adverse consequences for maternal and perinatal care.
    Keywords:  article retraction; duplication; maternal-fetal medicine; obstetrics; plagiarism; scientific misconduct
  2. Can J Nurs Res. 2020 Dec 21. 844562120977410
      BACKGROUND: Timeliness and number of references in written work is often a topic of controversy. Decisions about choice of references become complex when there is little recent published information or a great deal of important historical work on a topic.PURPOSE: The study aim was to develop a framework to guide authors to determine the number and currency of references to support their writing.
    METHODS: This study used a descriptive design with three steps: review of journal author information for guidance about reference currency (n = 247); correspondence with journal editors (n = 27); and a survey of nurse educators (n = 44) regarding currency and number of references in written assignments.
    RESULTS: Findings affirmed that recent literature is vital for nursing scholarship. Numerical guidelines offered were not based on identifiable consensus or rationale. Historical perspectives published over 5 or 10 years earlier are valued, even sometimes required. For a clinical paper, citation of the most current literature is viewed by editors and educators as essential, and may suffice.
    CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study and our search of the literature, we developed three decision making algorithms for searching the literature and selecting references by currency and number.
    Keywords:  Authorship; bibliographies as topic*; clinical writing; nursing research; periodicals as topic*; publishing/standards*
  3. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2020 Nov-Dec;11(6):11(6): 937-943
      The aim of every academician and clinical dermatologist is to publish their research in reputed biomedical journals. But from conceptualization to completion, myriad shortcomings creep into the article and by the time it is ready for publication, by default and certainly not by design, the article discourse gets flawed, sometime fatally so. The endeavor of this article is to discuss these pitfalls from conceptualization, statistical machinations, authorial misconcepts, article structuring, and final journal selection. The article can function as a prophylactic checklist, albeit not comprehensive, by any prospective author and is an appreciation of the most oft repeated fallacies usually detected in publication submissions.
    Keywords:  Article; pitfalls; publication; submissions
  4. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk). 2020 Aug 04. 66(1): 4-6
      Oncoendocrinology is a new vector in personalized medicine based on the scientific and creative communication of endocrinologists, oncologists, morphologists, radiologists, geneticists, medical physicists, biologists, chemists, and mathematicians. A section «Oncoendocrinology» has been introduced in the Problems of Endocrinology journal by the editorial board. It is planned to publish reviews and original articles in the aforementioned scientific and applied fields. We invite all interested authors and readers to cooperation.
  5. J Mycol Med. 2020 Nov 11. pii: S1156-5233(20)30224-9. [Epub ahead of print]31(1): 101083
  6. J Dermatol Sci. 2020 Oct;pii: S0923-1811(20)30324-8. [Epub ahead of print]100(1): 3