bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒03‒28
thirteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Nature. 2021 Mar;591(7851): S41-S42
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Conferences and meetings
  2. Nature. 2021 Mar;591(7851): 516-519
    Keywords:  Ethics; Peer review; Policy; Publishing
  3. Br J Sports Med. 2021 Mar 22. pii: bjsports-2021-104126. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  methodology; review; statistics
  4. Rev Med Interne. 2021 Mar 23. pii: S0248-8663(21)00068-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      The present article details the publication process and the vicissitudes of three articles about SARS-CoV-2 and its related disease (COVID-19). The three articles were published one month apart between March and May 2020. Their mediatization led French health authorities to intervene. Our article does not focus on and does not assess the scientific quality of the articles presented, but only aims to open the reflection on medical publication. Beyond the description of these three specific cases, this article raises issues about article retraction, peer-reviewing, preprints, authorship and the dissemination of scientific medical information, including through the mass media. It discusses new publishing modes and the dissemination of published information in clinical research.
    Keywords:  Authorship; COVID-19; Journal; Paternité; Peer-review; Preprint; Prépublication; Revue; Évaluation par les pairs
  5. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021 Mar 24. 1-6
      Purpose: To assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals.Methods: A cross-sectional study analyzing the top 10 nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.Results: There was no difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal's country of origin between the top single-blind journals and double-blind journals (SB = 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .49), but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB = 48.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .02). However, there was no difference for both country of origin (SB = 38.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .43) and articles from the US (SB = 35.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .21) when assessing the top eight double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The US (n = 16, 100%) and England (n = 16, 100%) most commonly made the top 10 lists for article contribution. This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England = 11/12).Conclusions: There was no significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.
    Keywords:  Peer review; disparity; masking
  6. Wellcome Open Res. 2020 ;5 172
      Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 28 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. This instrument rates the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 28 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25 th, 75 th percentile] 2.5 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 28) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support the recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their guidelines and making adherence to them mandatory.
    Keywords:  chronobiology; circadian rhythms; meta research; open science; publishing; sleep
  7. Hippocampus. 2021 Apr;31(4): 351-352
  8. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2021 Mar-Apr;87(2):pii: 10.25259/IJDVL_221_2021. [Epub ahead of print]87(2): 151-153