bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒01‒24
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Econ Policy. 2020 Apr;35(102): 269-304
      In April 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented the Public Access Policy (PAP), which mandated that the full text of NIH-supported articles be made freely available on PubMed Central - the NIH's repository of biomedical research. This paper uses 600,000 NIH articles and a matched comparison sample to examine how the PAP impacted researcher access to the biomedical literature and publishing patterns in biomedicine. Though some estimates allow for large citation increases after the PAP, the most credible estimates suggest that the PAP had a relatively modest effect on citations, which is consistent with most researchers having widespread access to the biomedical literature prior to the PAP, leaving little room to increase access. I also find that NIH articles are more likely to be published in traditional subscription-based journals (as opposed to 'open access' journals) after the PAP. This indicates that any discrimination the PAP induced, by subscription-based journals against NIH articles, was offset by other factors - possibly the decisions of editors and submission behaviour of authors.
    Keywords:  031; 034; 038
  2. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2021 Jan;40(3): 5
  3. Pathog Glob Health. 2021 Jan 21. 1-2
      The coronavirus pandemic has exposed not only the lack of preparation to combat the deadly disease, but also the nature of response by governments worldwide. This article analyses how some governments suppress science reporting in the Asia Pacific region during the pandemic. It also highlights how the political interference in science undermines liability and openness leading to the lack of freedom to express facts honestly.
    Keywords:  Asia; Coronavirus pandemic; scientific reporting; transparency
  4. J BUON. 2020 Nov-Dec;25(6):25(6): 2533-2536
      In the era of COVID19, research has been conducted at an extraordinary pace, eliminating the time from submission to publication to unprecedented levels. This is facilitated by preprint platforms and social media which can spread, reproduce and promote new knowledge with enormous speed. However, there are many concerns regarding the risk of potential deflection from the peer review process that some journals might have adopted, in order to manage the overwhelming wave of COVID19-related submissions. Another dimension of this problem, is the inequity and the publication hurdles that many non-COVID19 scientists might face, since review process of non-COVID19 papers is delayed and journal space is limited to serve the COVID19 literature. Besides the access to publishing, some scientists have redirected their scholarly activity towards coronavirus publications, either permanently or temporarily or even opportunistically. The latter might be attributed to the ease that COVID19 related articles are getting published and cited. This epidemiologic and potentially academic crisis might also be an opportunity for editors, journals and reviewers to create a new journalistic landscape where rapid, transparent and thorough review process can be offered to the authors based on the lessons learned from the current ongoing crisis.
  5. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan 22.
      Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Biomedical ethics; Conflict of interest; Disclosure; Duplicate publication; Editorial policies; Journal article; Manuscript; Peer review; Plagiarism; Retracted publication; Scientific misconduct
  6. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Jan 13. pii: S1865-9217(20)30203-8. [Epub ahead of print]
      AIM: The progress of a discipline depends on the knowledge widely shared, an aim fulfilled by publications. But which are the factors influencing publication? We examine predictors of a subsequent publication for abstracts submitted to the annual scientific conference of the German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO).METHODS: For all 288 abstracts presented in 2014 and 2015 we recorded presentation format, number and gender of authors, study design and university affiliation. Subsequent publication as a peer-reviewed full-text article was researched over a period of more than three years.
    RESULTS: A total of 88 abstracts (30.6 %) were published in full-text after a mean time span of 1.2±1.6 years after the respective conference. In multivariate logistic regression, secondary studies (OR 9.27 [1.51-57.04]; p=0.016), a higher number of authors (OR 1.21 [1.02-1.43]; p=0.030), a higher percentage of female authors (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03]; p=0.036) but male gender of the first author (OR 2.10 [1.11-3.98]; p=0.023) resulted in a higher probability of getting published as a journal paper.
    CONCLUSION: Our investigation shows that secondary studies, a higher number of authors, a higher percentage of women among the authors and male first authors are predictive factors of publication. After more than three years, only about one third of the abstracts presented at the DGKFO annual scientific conference have been published as a full-text journal article, meaning that a huge part of knowledge remains unshared.
    Keywords:  DGKFO scientific conference; DGKFO-Jahrestagung; Full-text publication; Kieferorthopädie; Knowledge transmission; Orthodontics; Publication parameters; Veröffentlichungsparameter; Volltext-Veröffentlichung; Wissensvermittlung
  7. Reumatologia. 2020 ;58(6): 345-349
      The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed the authorship criteria which can be employed by medics and allied specialists. Scholars who substantively contribute to research and writing, revise, approve final drafts for target journal submissions, and take responsibility for all aspects of the work deserve authorship. Increasing awareness of the ICMJE criteria, incorporating related points in journal instructions, and enforcing them in daily practice may have positive impact for healthcare. Instances of inappropriate authorship are ethical transgressions which can be avoided by editors employing strategies of author profile evaluations. There are several platforms for recording author accomplishments which may improve the discoverability of scholarly works and prevent unethical conduct. Most publishers advise authors to submit their Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCID) at the manuscript submission. Other identifiers, such as Twitter handles, are also emerging as tools to stimulate post-publication communication and increase authors' accountability for published articles.
    Keywords:  authorship; publication ethics; publishing; rheumatology
  8. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Jan 22. pii: bmjebm-2020-111604. [Epub ahead of print]
      OBJECTIVE: Although the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research into practice and to performing unbiased systematic reviews. This study assesses POCUS investigator and journal editor attitudes towards barriers to adhering to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines.DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Two separate surveys using a 5-point Likert scale were sent to POCUS study investigators and journal editors to assess for knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to the complete reporting of POCUS research. Respondents were identified based on a previous study assessing STARD 2015 adherence for POCUS studies published in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and critical care journals. Responses were anonymously linked to STARD 2015 adherence data from the previous study. Written responses were thematically grouped into the following categories: knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to quality reporting, or other. Likert response items are reported as median with IQRs.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the median Likert score for the investigator and editor surveys assessing knowledge, attitude and behavioural beliefs about barriers to adhering to the STARD 2015 guidelines.
    RESULTS: The investigator survey response rate was 18/69 (26%) and the editor response rate was 5/21 (24%). Most investigator respondents were emergency medicine practitioners (13/21, 62%). Two-thirds of investigators were aware of the STARD 2015 guidelines (12/18, 67%) and overall agreed that incomplete reporting limits generalisability and the ability to detect risk of bias (median 4 (4, 5)). Investigators felt that the STARD 2015 guidelines were useful, easy to find and easy to use (median 4 (4, 4.25); median 4 (4, 4.25) and median 4 (3, 4), respectively). There was a shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for ensuring complete research reporting (median 4 (3, 4) and median 4 (3.75, 4), respectively). Three of 18 authors (17%) felt that the English publication language of STARD 2015 was a barrier to adherence.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although investigators and editors recognise the importance of completely reported research, reporting quality is still a core issue for POCUS research. The shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for reporting quality is potentially problematic; we view completely reported research as an integral part of the research process that investigators are responsible for, with the peer review process serving as another additional layer of quality control. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals, auditing reporting guideline adherence during the peer review process and translation of STARD 2015 guidelines into additional languages may improve reporting completeness for the acute POCUS literature.
    TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework Registry (
    Keywords:  critical care; emergency medicine; evidence-based practice; radiology
  9. World J Surg. 2021 Jan 18.
      BACKGROUND: Reporting guidelines and study registration can minimize bias and improve the reporting quality of biomedical research, but may not be fully utilized. The objective of this study was to investigate the policies of surgery journals as for reporting guidelines and study registration and explore associated journal characteristic variables.METHODS: Study samples were obtained from the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (surgery category). The online guides for authors were browsed to identify which journals endorsed reporting guidelines and study registration. The predictors related to the endorsement were explored by using Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis, respectively.
    RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-eight surgery journals were included in our study. One hundred and sixty-three journals (86.7%) endorsed reporting guidelines and 103 journals (54.8%) endorsed study registration. About reporting guidelines, ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) recommendations were the most frequently endorsed (n = 155, 82.4%) by journals, followed by CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement (n = 94, 50.0%). About study registration, randomized controlled trial registration was endorsed by 101 (53.7%) journals, whereas the systematic review registration was endorsed by only 9 journals (4.8%). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that not North America, higher JCR (Journal Citation Reports) rank journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines and study registration.
    CONCLUSIONS: Surgery journals frequently use reporting guidelines, but nearly half of journals did not require study registration. Implementing these two mechanisms can prevent bias, and their adoption should be strengthened by authors, reviewers and journal editors in surgery.
  10. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020 Jan 19. pii: E6. [Epub ahead of print]5(1):
      We are glad to introduce the first Journal Club of volume five, the first issue. This edition is focused on relevant studies published in the last years in the field of eccentric training, chosen by our editorial board members and their colleagues. We hope to stimulate your curiosity in this field and to share with you the passion for the sport, seen also from a scientific point of view. The editorial board members wish you an inspiring lecture.
  11. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020 Jun 10. pii: E42. [Epub ahead of print]5(2):
      Research is required to minimize uncertainty and to be reproducible, that is, the design, implementation, evaluation, interpretation, and reporting of the presented data, must follow a good practice. An appropriate experimental design, an accurate execution of the study, a strict criticism of the obtained data while avoiding overestimation, as well as a suitable interpretation of main outcomes, represent key aspects in reporting and disseminating research to the scientific community. Furthermore, author contribution, responsibility, funding, acknowledgement, and adequately declaring any conflict of interest play important roles in science. The Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology (JFMK), a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), is committed to the highest scientific and ethical standards and encourages all authors to take into account and to comply, as much as possible, with the contents and issues reported in this technical note. This could be useful to improve the quality of the manuscripts and avoid misconduct, as well as to stimulate interest and debate, reflecting upon uses and misuses within our disciplines belonging to the medicine area (sports medicine and movement sciences) categories: anatomy, histology, orthopedics and sports medicine, rheumatology, sports sciences, physical therapy, sports therapy, and rehabilitation.
    Keywords:  author contributions; best practice; conflict of interest; design; ethical standard; experimental approach; funding; performance indicators; plagiarism; reliability of the measures; sample size; statement; statistical analysis
  12. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2019 Apr 12. pii: E21. [Epub ahead of print]4(2):
      We are glad to introduce the ninth Journal Club. This edition is focused on several relevant studies published in the last years in the field of Pediatric Exercise, chosen by our Editorial Board members and their colleagues. We hope to stimulate your curiosity in this field and to share with you the passion for the sport as seen also from the scientific point of view. The Editorial Board members wish you an inspiring lecture.
  13. Nature. 2021 Jan 20.
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Funding
  14. Neuroinformatics. 2021 Jan 16.
      There are few pharmacological therapeutics available for spinal cord injury despite years of preclinical and clinical research. This brief editorial discusses some of the shortcomings of translational research efforts. In addition, we comment on our previous experiences with data curation and highlight evolving efforts by the spinal cord injury research community to improve prospects for future therapeutic development, especially pertaining to preclinical data sharing through the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury (ODC-SCI).
    Keywords:  Community; Database design; FAIR; Repository; Reproducibility; Rigor; SCI 2020