bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒02‒28
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Scientometrics. 2021 Feb 14. 1-27
      To encourage research transparency and replication, more and more journals have been requiring authors to share original datasets and analytic procedures supporting their publications. Does open data boost journal impact? In this article, we report one of the first empirical studies to assess the effects of open data on journal impact. China Industrial Economics (CIE) mandated authors to open their research data in the end of 2016, which is the first to embrace open data among Chinese journals and provides a natural experiment for policy evaluation. We use the data of 37 Chinese economics journals from 2001 to 2019 and apply synthetic control method to causally estimate the effects of open data, and our results show that open data has significantly increased the citations of journal articles. On average, the current- and second-year citations of articles published with CIE have increased by 1 ~ 4 times, and articles published before the open data policy also benefited from the spillover effect. Our findings suggest that journals can leverage compulsory open data to develop reputation and amplify academic impacts.
    Keywords:  Economics; Impact factor; Open data; Open science; Research transparency
  2. R Soc Open Sci. 2021 Jan;8(1): 201494
      For any scientific report, repeating the original analyses upon the original data should yield the original outcomes. We evaluated analytic reproducibility in 25 Psychological Science articles awarded open data badges between 2014 and 2015. Initially, 16 (64%, 95% confidence interval [43,81]) articles contained at least one 'major numerical discrepancy' (>10% difference) prompting us to request input from original authors. Ultimately, target values were reproducible without author involvement for 9 (36% [20,59]) articles; reproducible with author involvement for 6 (24% [8,47]) articles; not fully reproducible with no substantive author response for 3 (12% [0,35]) articles; and not fully reproducible despite author involvement for 7 (28% [12,51]) articles. Overall, 37 major numerical discrepancies remained out of 789 checked values (5% [3,6]), but original conclusions did not appear affected. Non-reproducibility was primarily caused by unclear reporting of analytic procedures. These results highlight that open data alone is not sufficient to ensure analytic reproducibility.
    Keywords:  journal policy; meta-research; open badges; open data; open science; reproducibility
  3. Acta Inform Med. 2020 Dec;28(4): 232-236
      Background: Enormous number of medical journals published around the globe requires standardization of editing practice.Objective: The aim of this article was to enlist main principles of editing biomedical scientific journals adopted at annual meeting of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia & Herzegovina (AMSB&H).
    Methods: The evidence for writing this Guideline was systematically searched for during September 2020 in the PUBMED and GOOGLE SCHOLAR databases. The inclusion criteria were: original studies, systematic reviews, invited expert opinions, guidelines and editorials. The exclusion criteria were narrative reviews and uninvited opinion articles. The retrieved evidence was analyzed by members of the AMSB&H, then discussed at 2020 annual meeting of the AMSB&H and adopted by nominal group technique.
    Results: In total 14 recommendations were made, based on A to C class of evidence. The editors should educate potential authors and instruct them how to structure their manuscript, how to write every segment of the manuscript, and take care about correct use of statistical tests. Plagiarism detection softwares should be used regularly, and statistical and technical editing should be rigorous and thorough. International standards of reporting specific types of studies should be followed, and principles of ethical and responsible behavior of editors, reviewers and authors should be published on the journal's web site. The editors should insist on registration of clinical studies before submission, and check whether non-essential personal information is removed from the articles; when essential personal information has to be included, an article should not be published without signed informed consent by the patient to whom these information relate.
    Conclusions: Principles of editing biomedical scientific journals recommended in this guideline should serve as one of the means of improving medical journals' quality.
    Keywords:  editing; evidence-based; medical journals; recommendations
  4. Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7847): 528
    Keywords:  Arts; Careers; Communication; Lab life
  5. Asian J Psychiatr. 2021 Feb 12. pii: S1876-2018(21)00055-1. [Epub ahead of print]58 102599
      BACKGROUND: Though peer review is at the heart of scholarly publishing, peer review reports are not commonly investigated. We aimed to analyse the quality and structure of review reports submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM).METHODS: We systematically analysed the structure, tone, and quality of peer review reports of all original articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018 to May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was done using the 8-item Review Quality Instrument (RQI).
    RESULTS: A total of 527 review reports from 291 original articles were analysed. More than two-thirds of review reports were provided as inline comments (n = 368, 69.8 %). Most of the review reports were not well-structured; only a few provided a summary (n = 64, 13.2 %) or divided the comments into major and minor ones (n = 12, 2.5 %). Nearly a quarter had negative wordings (n = 117, 24.1 %) and a minority had a frankly unprofessional tone (n = 43, 8.8 %). The global rating was "poor" (n = 266, 50.5 %) or "below average" (n = 203, 38.5 %) for most reports.
    CONCLUSION: Most of the peer reviews submitted to the IJPM were not structured and obtained low scores on the RQI domains. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the quality of peer reviews and to provide training for reviewers.
    Keywords:  India; Manuscript rejection; Peer review; Psychiatry journal; Review quality; Scientific journal
  6. J Dent. 2021 Feb 23. pii: S0300-5712(21)00039-7. [Epub ahead of print] 103618
      OBJECTIVES: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry.METHODS: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline.
    RESULTS: A total of 2,812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1,837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1,751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1,837, 42%) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11% (201/1,837) of the e-mails, and 27% (504/1,837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails.
    CONCLUSIONS: The email campaign from PJs was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJs' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.
    Keywords:  Access to Information; Biomedical Research; Editorial Policies; Education; Electronic Mail; Medical; Open Access Publishing
  7. J Hum Lact. 2021 Feb;37(1): 17-18
    Keywords:  Journal of Human Lactation; Preprints; policy
  8. Ann Surg. 2021 Jan 15.
      : The gold standard of safe-guarding the quality of published science is peer review. However, this long-standing system has not evolved in today's digital world, where there has been an explosion in the number of publications and surgical journals. A journal's quality depends not only on the quality of papers submitted but is reflected upon the quality of its peer review process. Over the past decade journals are experiencing a rapidly escalating "peer review crisis" with editors struggling in recruiting reliable reviewers who will provide their skilled work for free with ever-diminishing incentives within today's restricted time-constraints. The problem is complex and difficult to solve, but more urgent than ever. Time is valuable and academicians, researchers and clinicians are overburdened and already extremely busy publishing their own research along with their ever growing clinical and administrative duties. Fewer and fewer individuals volunteer to provide their skilled work for free which is expected. The current incentives to review do not have a big impact on one's career and therefore are not realistic effective countermeasures.As the limits of the system are constantly stretched, there will inevitably come a "point of no return" and Surgical Journals will be the ones to first take the hit as there is an overwhelming evidence of burnout in the surgical specialties and the Surgical community is almost 50% smaller than its Medical counterpart.This review identifies the potential causes of the peer-review crisis, outlines the incentives and drawbacks of being a reviewer, summarizes the currently established common practices of rewarding reviewers and the existing and potential solutions to the problem. The magnitude of the problem and unsustainability that will make it perish are discussed along with its current flaws. Finally, recommendations are made to address many of the weaknesses of the system with the hope to revive it.
  9. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 01;69(1): 36-41
      Authorship is the currency of an academic career. Scientific publications have significant academic and financial implications. Several standard authorship guidelines exist, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is the most popular amongst them. There are increasing concerns about the ethics of publications with the rise of inappropriate authorship. The most important reason appears to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the authorship guidelines and what actions constitute unethical behaviors. There is a need to incorporate standard guidelines in medical curricula and conduct structured training and education programs for researchers across the board. The current perspective describes the significant concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship, and the possible measures being formulated to shape the future of authorship.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Committee on Publication Ethics; Council for Science Editors; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; ethics; publication
  10. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(2): e0246675
      Academic journals provide a key quality-control mechanism in science. Yet, information asymmetries and conflicts of interests incentivize scientists to deceive journals about the quality of their research. How can honesty be ensured, despite incentives for deception? Here, we address this question by applying the theory of honest signaling to the publication process. Our models demonstrate that several mechanisms can ensure honest journal submission, including differential benefits, differential costs, and costs to resubmitting rejected papers. Without submission costs, scientists benefit from submitting all papers to high-ranking journals, unless papers can only be submitted a limited number of times. Counterintuitively, our analysis implies that inefficiencies in academic publishing (e.g., arbitrary formatting requirements, long review times) can serve a function by disincentivizing scientists from submitting low-quality work to high-ranking journals. Our models provide simple, powerful tools for understanding how to promote honest paper submission in academic publishing.
  11. Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Jan;51 Suppl 1 S36-S39
      General science literacy contributes to good public decision-making about technology and medicine. This essay explores the kinds of science literacy currently developed by public education in the United States of America. It argues that current curricula on "science as inquiry" (formerly the "nature of science") need to be brought up to date with the inclusion of discussion of social epistemological concepts such as trust and scientific authority, scientific disagreement versus science denialism, the role of ideology and bias in scientific research, and the importance of peer review and responsiveness to criticism.
    Keywords:  Helen Longino; Naomi Oreskes; authority; bias; consensus; disagreement; peer review; science education; trust
  12. Nature. 2021 Feb 26.
    Keywords:  Conferences and meetings; Institutions; Physics; Policy; Scientific community; Society
  13. An Pediatr (Barc). 2021 Feb 20. pii: S1695-4033(21)00005-9. [Epub ahead of print]
      To publish articles in prestigious scientific journals is not a simple task, particularly because of three main reasons: the difficulty for designing and performing competitive and high quality research, the high rates of rejection in most high-impact journals, and the absence of systematized training in the methodology of biomedical publications in the curricular programs. If to this is added the progressive complexity of the instructions for authors and the formal requirements that most journals impose, it is logical that there is discouragement among potential authors. On the other hand, the pressure and the demand for authorship of scientific articles to be able to get academic and professional positions of a certain level are increasing. However, what at first glance seems a gloomy perspective, it is not so much if some key aspects related to the structure and writing of manuscripts and the systematics of the editorial process of the journals are known and applied, which, in short, continue being in force since the aphorism «publish or perish» became popular at the beginning of the last century. As described in this article, the steps to follow are straightforward, logical, and interrelated, so getting off to a good start and completing the various stages properly and in the right order always represents a clear advantage in ensuring the final success of having your paper accepted.
    Keywords:  Article; Artículo; Authorship; Autoría; Ethics; Publicación; Publication; Revistas científicas; Scientific journals; Ética
  14. Urol Oncol. 2021 Feb 18. pii: S1078-1439(21)00049-1. [Epub ahead of print]
      This narrative reviews the history of Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations from its inception and founding through its development to reach its current status. It describes the difficulties it experienced during its initial years when it almost folded, its resuscitation when it was designated as the "official journal" of the Society of Urologic Oncology, its merger with Seminars in Urologic Oncology to strengthen the content of both journals in a new format, its acceptance for indexation by the National Library of Medicine, its progress to monthly publication in addressing the needs of both authors and readership, and its current status as a leading multidisciplinary journal in urologic oncology. As a founding editor and managing editor for the first 5 years and then as editor-in-chief for the next 20 years, the author has been integrally involved in each step of the Journal's development and maturation. The Journal has been referred to as "the journal that almost never was" as it now has reached its 25th year of publication. This article commemorates the Journal's 25th Anniversary and gratefully acknowledges all of those investigators, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and the readership who have contributed to the Journal's ongoing success.
    Keywords:  Journal; SUO; Urologic oncology
  15. World J Orthop. 2021 Feb 18. 12(2): 56-60
      On behalf of the Editorial Office of World Journal of Orthopedics (WJO), we extend our sincere gratitude to our authors, subscribers, readers, Editorial Board members, and peer reviewers, thanking each and every one for their contributions to WJO in 2020 and with wishes for a Happy New Year. It was the support of all our Editorial Board members and peer reviewers that allowed the Baishideng Publishing Group Inc to successfully carry out the complete peer review, editing and publishing processes for WJO in 2020. We have analyzed the data of WJO's manuscript submissions and article publications in 2020, the invited manuscripts for 2021, manuscript peer review, composition of Editorial Board, and citation of WJO's articles, and present the findings here. We expect to be even more productive and to further raise the academic rank of WJO in 2021.
    Keywords:  Acknowledgments; Editorial Board; Journal development; New Year's message; World Journal of Orthopedics
  16. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2021 Feb;23(2): 198-201
      No abstract available.