bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒01‒17
twenty-nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021 01 12. 10(1): 10
    Jalali R, Hosseinian-Far A, Mohammadi M.
      BACKGROUND: Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provisions through translational research.MAIN TEXT: Despite the advances in health sciences, emerging infectious diseases have become more frequent in recent decades. Furthermore, emerging and reemerging pathogens have led to several global public health challenges. A question, and to an extent a concern, arises from this: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile journals and even the ones among the top 1%?
    CONCLUSION: Two responses could be potentially provided to the above question: First, there seems to be a significant gap between our theoretical knowledge and practice. And second that many scholars and scientists publish papers only to have a longer list of publications, and therefore publishing is viewed as a personal objective, rather than for improving communities' public health.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Journal article; Publishing; Research ethics; Research policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00884-0
  2. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020 Dec;24(12): 1284-1285
    Siddiqui S, Ahmed A, Azim A.
      How to cite this article: Siddiqui S, Ahmed A, Azim A. Selecting Journal for Publication in the Era of "Haste Predatory Journals and COVID-19". Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(12):1284-1285.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Open-access platform; Predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23687
  3. J Trauma Stress. 2021 Jan 13.
    Kerig PK.
      The scholarly publishing enterprise is currently undergoing a "crisis," likely exacerbated by the global pandemic, in which peer reviewers are increasingly less available to perform reviews at the same time the flow of submitted manuscripts has not subsided. This editorial considers possible reasons why scholars might decline to participate in the peer review process, including the lack of compensation for this time-consuming and effort-laden service activity; questions about the fairness, validity, and efficacy of peer review; a commonly experienced dearth of training in peer review skills; and the fact that a lack of diversity in the sciences, academia, and the professions is reflected in the makeup of scholarly publishing leadership such that peer review is not necessarily conducted by one's "peers." Potential considerations are also offered on the other side of the ledger. These include the benefits that accrue to our own scholarship and publishing acumen when we review the work of others; the value of peer review to the quality of our journals and the excellence of our field; the positive contributions that thoughtful and educative reviews can make to the work of our colleagues; recent initiatives designed to increase representativeness, reduce bias, and guard against conflicts of interest in the peer reviewing process; the availability of guides and tutorials to assist emerging scholars to develop the relevant skills and acumen; and the ways in which peer reviewing can set the stage for professional growth and entry into leadership positions in the field of scholarly publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22647
  4. Elife. 2021 Jan 13. pii: e59338. [Epub ahead of print]10
    Pina DG, Buljan I, Hren D, Marušić A.
      Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes - a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings - had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.
    Keywords:  Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions; grant evaluation; meta-research; none; peer review; research funding; reviewer agreement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59338
  5. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Jan;37(1): 1-2
    Yadava OP.
      
    Keywords:   Publishing Frauds; Ethics; Peer Review; Plagiarism; Salami/Duplicate Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01080-2
  6. MRS Bull. 2020 ;45(11): 877-878
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2020.283
  7. Nature. 2021 Jan 08.
    DasGupta S.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00010-5
  8. Int J Dent. 2020 ;2020 8881352
    Samuel S, Cherian JM, Thomas AM.
      Background: In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. Methodology. A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).Results: The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions.
    Conclusions: The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8881352
  9. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jan 01. 109(1): 1-12
    Shaffer C.
      Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and "walking the walk." In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision "that quality information is essential for improved health."
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1127
  10. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Jan 14. 6(1): 1
    Aubert Bonn N, Pinxten W.
      BACKGROUND: Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments.METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
    RESULTS: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity.
    CONCLUSIONS: The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective.
    STUDY REGISTRATION: osf.io/33v3m.
    Keywords:  Flanders; Inter-actor dialogue; Misconduct; Pressure to publish; Questionable research practices; Research assessment; Research evaluation; Research integrity; Success in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00104-0
  11. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Jan 14. 6(1): 3
    Aubert Bonn N, Pinxten W.
      BACKGROUND: Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
    RESULTS: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.
    STUDY REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/33v3m.
    Keywords:  Flanders; Inter-actor dialogue; Misconduct; Pressure to publish; Questionable research practices; Research assessment; Research culture; Research evaluation; Research integrity; Success in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z
  12. Anaesthesia. 2021 Jan 13.
    Shelton CL, Klein AA, Bailey CR, El-Boghdadly K.
      Case reports have fulfilled an important role in the development of anaesthesia and continue to be highly relevant to modern practice. Despite this, they are sometimes criticised for being insufficiently rigorous to meaningfully inform clinical practice or research design. Reporting checklists are a useful tool to improve rigour in research and, although case report checklists have previously been developed, no existing checklist focuses on the peri-operative setting. In order to address the need for a case reports checklist that better accommodates peri-operative care, we used an established tool as the basis for developing the 12-item Anaesthesia Case Report checklist. This was refined using an iterative approach through feedback from journal editors with experience of handling case reports, patient and public involvement, and trialling its use on Anaesthesia Reports submissions. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist differs from existing checklists by aligning with peri-operative practice; it places less emphasis on making diagnoses and focuses on the way in which clinical challenges, for example, related to the patient's comorbidities or operative interventions, are addressed. Adopting a standardised approach to the content of case reports presents clear benefits to authors, editors and peer reviewers through streamlining the processes involved in writing and publication. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist provides a pragmatic framework for comprehensive and transparent reporting. We hope it will facilitate the authorship of high-quality case reports with the potential to further improve the quality and safety of peri-operative care.
    Keywords:  case reports; reporting guidelines; research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15391
  13. SN Compr Clin Med. 2021 Jan 03. 1-2
    Kozak I.
      
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Causality; Eye infection; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00723-0
  14. Zool Res. 2021 Jan 18. pii: 2095-8137(2021)01-0001-02. [Epub ahead of print]42(1): 1-2
    Yao YG, Jiang XL.
      Since its establishment in 1980, Zoological Research ( ZR) has walked with many scientists during their academic careers (Yao & Zhang, 2015; Yao et al., 2019). During this joyful holiday season and hopeful new year, we are incredibly pleased to share our wonderful news with all authors, readers, editorial board members, and peer reviewers of ZR. Due to its growing academic influence over the last several years, ZR has attained its highest impact factor to date, reaching 2.638 by the end of 2019 (Q1, 12th/169 SCI journals). Furthermore, its current CiteScore has reached 4.3 (as of December 2020), a nearly 60% increase since 2019. Meanwhile, both the publishing capacity and efficiency of ZR have continued to expand. We are immensely proud of each of our efforts in promoting ZR. Of note, your enduring support and faith have helped drive the sustained growth and advancement of ZR, which continues to evolve as a prominent journal in the zoological field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.331
  15. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2021 Jan 12. 23(1): 6
    Manning WJ.
      There were 79 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2019, including 65 original research papers, 2 reviews, 8 technical notes, 1 Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonacne (SCMR) guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2018 (n = 89) with a corresponding 5.5% increase in manuscript submissions from 345 to 366. This led to a slight decrease in the acceptance rate from 25 to 22%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2019 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2020) increased from 5.07 to 5.36. The 2020 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2017 and 2018 was cited 5.36 times in 2019. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.2. We are now finishing the 13th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC. As outlined in this report, the Open-Access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications. I hope that our authors will continue to send their very best, high quality manuscripts for JCMR consideration and that our readers will continue to look to JCMR for the very best/state-of-the-art publications in our field. It takes a village to run a journal. JCMR is blessed to have very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and Reviewers. I thank each of them for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. My role, and the entire process would not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers (who will leaving the journal in the coming months) and our assistant managing editor, Jennifer Rodriguez, who has agreed to increase her reponsibilities. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR. As I begin my 5th year as your editor-in-chief, please know that I fully recognize we are not perfect in our review process. We try our best to objectively assess every submission in a timely manner, but sometimes don't get it "right." The editorial process is a tremendously fulfilling experience for me. The opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and a highlight of my week!
    Keywords:  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Editorial process; Imaging; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00704-1
  16. Chemistry. 2020 Aug 26. 26(48): 10908
    Ross H.
      Let's celebrate! Editor-in-Chief Haymo Ross talks about the 50th anniversary of EuChemS and this special issue dedicated to the 8th EuChemS Chemistry Congress, which was supposed to be held in Lisbon from August 30 to September 3, 2020.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202003094
  17. J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc. 2019 ;34(1): 3-4
    Paz-Pacheco E.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15605/jafes.034.01.01