bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒01‒10
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2021 Jan 07. 1-11
    Logan SW.
      Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the reference accuracy of articles from a random sample of issues from 1999, 2009, and 2019 of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (RQES). Methods: Up to two issues each of RQES published in 1999, 2009, and 2019 were randomly sampled, and references for articles were verified for accuracy. A total of 1,341 references from 50 articles were verified: 1999 (439 references), 2009 (396 references), and 2019 (506 references). Results: The overall error rate was 40% across the three years (i.e., number of references with at least one error divided by the total number of references and multiplied by 100). Chi-square analyses indicated no significant differences between years for the overall error rate (p > .05): 44% (1999), 38% (2009), and 39% (2019). Chi-square analyses indicated significant differences between years for at least one reference with an error related to author(s) names (p > .05). Chi-square analyses indicated significant differences between years for at least one reference with an error related to the article title. Conclusions: In the author's opinion, an overall error rate of 40% across the three years for RQES is simply too high. Ultimately, it is authors' responsibility to ensure reference accuracy. However, given the unacceptable error rates across fields of study, journals, and publication years, it may be prudent to explore supplemental options to increase reference accuracy in peer-reviewed articles. Reference accuracy is an important issue for authors, editorial offices of journals, and the scientific community.
    Keywords:  Accuracy; bibliography; citations; references
  2. Account Res. 2021 Jan 08. 1-11
    Crijns TJ, Ottenhoff JSE, Ring D.
      Peer review is intended to improve the quality and clarity of scientific reports. Upon rejection, authors receive suggestions from knowledgeable field experts. It is unclear whether authors take full advantage of the peer review process to improve their work before publication in another journal. We identified all actionable suggestions in rejection letters of 250 randomly selected manuscripts from a prominent orthopedic journal in 2012. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar and compared the published text to the initial submission to determine if reviewer suggestions were addressed. Two hundred (80%) of the 250 rejected manuscripts were published in another journal by July 2018. Among the 609 substantive actionable queries, 205 (34%) were addressed in the published manuscripts. The suggestions most frequently addressed were in the title and abstract (48%). Our findings suggest that authors often disregard advice from peer reviewers after rejection. Authors may regard the peer review process as particular to a journal rather than a process to optimize dissemination of useful, accurate knowledge in any media. Specialty journalsmight consider collaborating by using a single manuscript submission site that allows peer reviews to be transferred to the next journal, which helps holding authors accountable for making the suggested changes.
    Keywords:  Peer review; actionable suggestions; publications; reviewer suggestions
  3. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 Jan;pii: S0025-6196(20)31370-7. [Epub ahead of print]96(1): 16-17
    Nath KA.
  4. Health Commun. 2021 Jan 03. 1-13
    Fleerackers A, Riedlinger M, Moorhead L, Ahmed R, Alperin JP.
      In this article, we investigate the surge in use of COVID-19-related preprints by media outlets. Journalists are a main source of reliable public health information during crises and, until recently, journalists have been reluctant to cover preprints because of the associated scientific uncertainty. Yet, uploads of COVID-19 preprints and their uptake by online media have outstripped that of preprints about any other topic. Using an innovative approach combining altmetrics methods with content analysis, we identified a diversity of outlets covering COVID-19-related preprints during the early months of the pandemic, including specialist medical news outlets, traditional news media outlets, and aggregators. We found a ubiquity of hyperlinks as citations and a multiplicity of framing devices for highlighting the scientific uncertainty associated with COVID-19 preprints. These devices were rarely used consistently (e.g., mentioning that the study was a preprint, unreviewed, preliminary, and/or in need of verification). Less than half of the stories we analyzed contained framing devices emphasizing uncertainty. Outlets in our sample were much less likely to identify the research they mentioned as preprint research, compared to identifying it as simply "research." This work has significant implications for public health communication within the changing media landscape. While current best practices in public health risk communication promote identifying and promoting trustworthy sources of information, the uptake of preprint research by online media presents new challenges. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for fostering greater awareness of the scientific uncertainty associated with health research findings.
  5. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2020 Oct-Dec;38(4):38(4): 323-324
    Baliga S.
  6. J Perinatol. 2021 Jan 04.
    Pearlman SA, Swanson JR.
      Quality improvement (QI) is a relatively new and evolving field as it applies to healthcare. Hence, publishing a QI paper may present certain challenges as QI differs from standard types of scientific research. Some considerations in writing are inherent to all types of manuscripts submitted for publication, whereas others are unique to QI papers. This paper, the final in a series of eight papers related to QI in the neonatal setting, describes the best practices for writing and publishing QI manuscripts. Common pitfalls to avoid are also highlighted.
  7. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Dec 06. 11(1): 1844955
    Olff M.
      The European Journal of Psychotraumatology, owned by the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS), launched as one of the first full Open Access 'specialist' journals in its field. Has this Open Access model worked in how the Journal has performed? With the European Journal of Psychotraumatology celebrating its ten-year anniversary we look back at the past decade of sharing our research with the world and with how the journal sits with the broader movement beyond Open Access to Open Research and we present new policies we have adopted to move the field of psychotraumatology to the next level of Open Research. While we as researchers now make our publications more often freely available to all, how often do we share our protocols, our statistical analysis plans, or our data? We all gain from more transparency and reproducibility, and big steps are being made in this direction. The journal's decennial performance as well as the exciting new Open Research developments are presented in this editorial. The journal is no longer in its infancy and eager to step into the next decade of Open Research.
    Keywords:  Data Availability Statement; FAIR data; Open Access; Open Research; Open Science Badges; PTSD; psychotrauma
  8. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(1): e0243514
    Schröder M, Lutter M, Habicht IM.
      We apply event history analysis to analyze career and publication data of virtually all political scientists in German university departments, showing that each published refereed journal article increases a political scientist's chance for tenure by 9 percent, while other publications affect the odds for tenure only marginally and in some cases even negatively. Each received award and third party funding increases the odds for tenure by respectively 41 and 26 percent, while international experience, social capital and children hardly have a strong influence. Surprisingly, having degrees from a German university of excellence strongly decreases the odds for tenure. Women with similar credentials have at least 20 percent higher odds to get tenure than men. Our data therefore suggests that the lower factual hiring rates of women are better explained by a leaky pipeline, e.g. women leaving academia, rather than because women are not hired even when they are as productive as men. The article contributes to a better understanding of the role of meritocratic and non-meritocratic factors in achieving highly competitive job positions.