bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒04‒25
twenty-four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Front Res Metr Anal. 2020 ;5 588331
      Financial conflicts of interest, several cases of scientific fraud, and research limitations from strong intellectual property laws have all led to questioning the epistemic and social justice appropriateness of industry-funded research. At first sight, the ideal of Open Science, which promotes transparency, sharing, collaboration, and accountability, seems to target precisely the type of limitations uncovered in commercially-driven research. The Open Science movement, however, has primarily focused on publicly funded research, has actively encouraged liaisons with the private sector, and has also created new strategies for commercializing science. As a consequence, I argue that Open Science ends up contributing to the commercialization of science, instead of overcoming its limitations. I use the examples of research publications and citizen science to illustrate this point. Accordingly, the asymmetry between private and public science, present in the current plea to open science, ends up compromising the values of transparency, democracy, and accountability.
    Keywords:  commercialization of science; democratization of science; industry-funded research; open Science; open access
  2. Int J Psychophysiol. 2021 Apr 15. pii: S0167-8760(21)00137-9. [Epub ahead of print]
      There is a pressing need for resources to train the next generation of psychophysiologists. Psychophysiology, and especially the subfield of cognitive electrophysiology, poses challenges for educators because they require an understanding of complex concepts and experimental design, advanced analysis and programming skills, and access to specialized software and equipment. These challenges are common to other STEM fields as well. We present PURSUE (Preparing Undergraduates for Research in STEM Using Electrophysiology - as an example initiative that engages open education practices to create and share freely available electrophysiology training materials. This model uses evidence-based pedagogy to create accessible and flexible materials, an open database with supporting lab-based training resources, and also provides instructor support during implementation. This model can be used for other areas within STEM. We review benefits and challenges of using open science research and publishing practices for training. Open science resources have benefits for both course-based undergraduate research experiences and other types of training by increasing access to publications, software, and code for conducting experiments and analyses, as well as access to data for those who do not have access to research equipment. Further, we argue that coordinated open educational practices are necessary to take full advantage of open science resources for training students. Open educational practices such as open educational resources, collaborative course building, and implementation support greatly enhance the ability to incorporate these open science resources into a curriculum.
    Keywords:  Cognitive electrophysiology; Open education; Open science; Psychophysiology; Teaching
  3. Child Dev Perspect. 2020 Mar;14(1): 9-14
      Based on the recommendations of a Task Force on Scientific Integrity and Openness it appointed, the Governing Council of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) adopted a Policy on Scientific Integrity and Openness (SRCD, 2019a) and accompanying Author Guidelines on Scientific Integrity and Openness for Publishing in Child Development (SRCD, 2019b). Here we discuss some of the challenges associated with realizing SRCD's vision for a science of child development that is open, transparent, robust, impactful, and conducted with the highest standards of integrity. In identifying the challenges-protecting participants and researchers from harm, respecting diversity, and balancing the benefits of change with the costs -we also offer constructive solutions.
  4. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Apr 17. 22(1): 365
      BACKGROUND: Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.METHODS: In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor.
    RESULTS: Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the "Directory of Open Access Journals" (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs.
    CONCLUSION: The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.
    Keywords:  Awareness of predatory journals; Online survey; Open access journals; Orthopaedic and trauma surgeons
  5. Rev Med Interne. 2021 Apr 15. pii: S0248-8663(21)00407-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication.
    Keywords:  Academic spam e-mail; Conférences prédatrices; Open access publication; Predatory conference; Predatory journals; Publication en libre accès; Publication ethics; Revues prédatrices; Spam; Éthique de la publication
  6. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2021 Mar;51(1): 106-110
  7. Gac Med Mex. 2020 ;156(6): 523-526
      Traditional peer review is undergoing increasing questioning, given the increase in scientific fraud detected and the replication crisis biomedical research is currently going through. Researchers, academic institutions, and research funding agencies actively promote scientific record analysis, and multiple tools have been developed to achieve this. Different biomedical journals were founded with post-publication peer review as a feature, and there are several digital platforms that make this process possible. In addition, an increasing number biomedical journals allow commenting on articles published on their websites, which is also possible in preprint repositories. Moreover, publishing houses and researchers are largely using social networks for the dissemination and discussion of articles, which sometimes culminates in refutations and retractions.La revisión por pares tradicional atraviesa por crecientes cuestionamientos, dado el aumento en el fraude científico detectado y la crisis de replicación que recientemente se ha presentado en la investigación biomédica. Investigadores, instituciones académicas y agencias de financiamiento activamente promueven el análisis del registro científico y se han desarrollado múltiples herramientas para lograrlo. Diferentes revistas biomédicas se fundaron con la revisión por pares pospublicación como característica; existen varias plataformas digitales que hacen posible este proceso. Asimismo, cada vez hay más revistas biomédicas que permiten comentar artículos publicados en sus sitios web, lo cual también es posible en repositorios de preimpresiones. Sumado a esto, las casas editoriales y los investigadores están usando ampliamente las redes sociales para la difusión y discusión de artículos, lo cual a veces culmina en refutaciones y retracciones.
    Keywords:  Biomedicina; Biomedicine; Post-publication peer review; Redes sociales; Revisión por pares pospublicación; Social networks
  8. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 ;6 655350
      Authorship represents a highly discussed topic in nowadays academia. The share of co-authored papers has increased substantially in recent years allowing scientists to specialize and focus on specific tasks. Arising from this, social scientific literature has especially discussed author orders and the distribution of publication and citation credits among co-authors in depth. Yet only a small fraction of the authorship literature has also addressed the actual underlying question of what actually constitutes authorship. To identify social scientists' motives for assigning authorship, we conduct an empirical study surveying researchers around the globe. We find that social scientists tend to distribute research tasks among (individual) research team members. Nevertheless, they generally adhere to the universally applicable Vancouver criteria when distributing authorship. More specifically, participation in every research task with the exceptions of data work as well as reviewing and remarking increases scholars' chances to receive authorship. Based on our results, we advise journal editors to introduce authorship guidelines that incorporate the Vancouver criteria as they seem applicable to the social sciences. We further call upon research institutions to emphasize data skills in hiring and promotion processes as publication counts might not always depict these characteristics.
    Keywords:  academic incentive system; authorship; ethics in research; research tasks; specialization; survey research
  9. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Mar-Apr;37(2):pii: S8755-7223(20)30206-4. [Epub ahead of print]37(2): 488-492
      Peer review, in various forms, is fundamental to research-based fields and scholarly publication. The integrity of the publication process is necessary to advance nursing science and support clinical nursing practice. The peer review process undergirds publication and grant funding. In theory, peer review should occur in a process that is unbiased with results providing a fair assessment of the scientific merit and credibility of the work being reviewed. The purpose of peer review is lost if reviewer comments are unprofessional. Budding nurse scholars may be demoralized and discouraged to revise and resubmit their work after receiving review feedback they perceive unprofessional and lacking constructive recommendations on how to improve their work. This "incivility" in the peer review process may discourage nursing authors from revising and resubmitting their work, thus robbing nursing of potentially meaningful contributions to nursing science. Often beginning doctorate nursing students have little or no experience in having their scholarly works evaluated and receiving feedback via the peer review process. Peer review provides an opportunity to educate emerging nurse scholars on ways to improve their writing skills and ways to receive and respond to constructive, meaningful feedback. This article aims to discuss: 1) peer review process, 2) challenges with peer review, 3) impact of unprofessional peer review comments and incivility in nursing peer review process can have on a budding scientists and nurse scholars, 4) ways the peer review process can be used to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars, 5) implications for nursing scholarship, 6) recommendations to address bias and how to provide supportive and constructive feedback and 7) finally provide readers with available resources where they can learn more about how to conduct a peer review.
    Keywords:  Nurse scientists; Peer review; PhD student
  10. Nature. 2021 Apr 19.
    Keywords:  Careers; Peer review; Publishing
  11. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Mar-Apr;37(2):pii: S8755-7223(21)00002-8. [Epub ahead of print]37(2): 335-341
      English as an additional language scholars may be at a disadvantage when submitting manuscripts to most professional publications. This international collaboration between two Sigma chapters provided linguistic review of Jordanian nurses' manuscripts and dissertation chapters by American scholars. The background for the collaboration and the process are described. During the first year, formative evaluation was ongoing, allowing minor revisions to the program. Summative evaluation was completed after one year guided by Stufflebeam's (2014) context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model. Both authors and reviewers indicated satisfaction with the collaboration. All of the authors indicated that the feedback that they had received was clear. All of the reviewers indicated that they were willing to complete additional reviews. The evaluation also indicated areas of concern, including a reviewer's struggle to limit comments to linguistic changes rather than additional suggestions regarding content and discussion.
    Keywords:  International collaboration; Linguistic review; Mentoring; Scholarly writing
  12. Account Res. 2021 Apr 21.
      Publications of expressions of concern and retractions should be timely, accurate and comprehensive. We assessed these characteristics for 292 publications by a research group about which we submitted concerns about publication integrity to 77 journals and 29 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By October 2020, 115 publications were corrected (3), had expressions of concern (18), or were retracted (94). The median (95% CI) time from submission of concerns to the first journal correction was 22.1(18.2-26.9) months: this did not diminish by year of submission of concerns, varied between publishers, and was shorter for journals with higher impact factors. 84 publications of original research were retracted. The median (range) proportion of concerns raised with the journal that were mentioned in the ensuing retraction notices was 9.5% (2-49). At least 75% of retraction notices included the suggested content for 7/9, 3/9 and 3/16 items in the Committee for Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch minimum and optimal recommended formats, respectively. Thus, assessment of concerns about publication integrity was delayed and incomplete. Adherence to recommended content of retraction notices was moderate at best. Strategies are needed to improve the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of processes for resolving concerns about publication integrity.
    Keywords:  Publication integrity; academic publishing; expression of concern; retraction
  13. Front Res Metr Anal. 2019 ;4 5
    Keywords:  indexing; open access; openness; policy; policymakers; scholarly academics; trust
  14. Front Res Metr Anal. 2020 ;5 607257
      In psychology, a Registered Reports system is key to preventing questionable research practices. Under this system, manuscripts, including their detailed protocols (i.e., hypothesis, experimental design, sample size, and methods of statistical analysis), are reviewed prior to data collection. If a protocol manuscript is accepted, publication of the full manuscript including the results and discussion is guaranteed in principle regardless of whether the collected data support the registered hypothesis. However, this assurance of publication might be broken under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: Begrudging withdrawal of an accepted protocol manuscript due to a difficulty to meet the deadline by compelling reasons (e.g., pandemic) has occurred. The present paper reports the first author's real-life experience related to the collapse of the assurance of publication in the Registered Reports system and discusses the disbenefits of this collapse. Furthermore, we propose the implementation of a journal section specific to protocol manuscripts as a solution to the crisis of the Registered Reports system.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; coronavirus disease 2019; file drawer problem; idea journals; open science; psychology; registered reports
  15. Front Res Metr Anal. 2019 ;4 4
    Keywords:  big data; open science; research assessment; research collaboration; research ethics; scholarly communication
  16. Nat Rev Mater. 2021 Apr 13. 1-2
      The future of our species and planet hinges on our scientific creativity to tackle future challenges. However, the trust of the public in scientific processes needs to be earned and kept, which will require inclusive, self-reflecting, honest and inspiring science communication.
    Keywords:  Education; Scientific community
  17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Apr 20. pii: S0895-4356(21)00114-1. [Epub ahead of print]
      OBJECTIVES: Data sharing practices remain elusive in biomedicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the problems associated with the lack of data sharing. The objective of this article is to draw attention to the problem and possible ways to address it.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article examines some of the current open access and data sharing practices at biomedical journals and funders. In the context of COVID-19 the consequences of these practices is also examined.
    RESULTS: Despite the best of intentions on the part of funders and journals, COVID-19 biomedical research is not open. Academic institutions need to incentivize and reward data sharing practices as part of researcher assessment. Journals and funders need to implement strong polices to ensure that data sharing becomes a reality. Patients support sharing of their data.
    CONCLUSION: Biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should act to require stronger adherence to data sharing policies.
    Keywords:  COIV-19; Data sharing; audit and feedback; incentives and rewards; open science
  18. World J Virol. 2021 Mar 25. 10(2): 30-33
      The 2020 year-end wrap-up session of Baishideng Publishing Group was held on December 31, 2020. All staff attended this session. We shared our key results area and made a business plan regarding the journal management. World Journal of Virology (WJV) is now abstracted and indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central. It received 23 manuscripts and published 9 papers which included 6 articles reporting coronavirus 19 in 2020. On the other hand, we made major strategies for WJV's development in 2021. At present, WJV only has 28 Editorial Board members and cannot receive many manuscripts. We must redouble our efforts to invite more highly influential scientists to join our Editorial Board member and write high-quality manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Editorial board; Publication; Virology; World Journal of Virology
  19. Indian Pediatr. 2021 Apr 20. pii: S097475591600316. [Epub ahead of print]
      Publications in the field of medical literature are a matter of prestige and fame for doctors. While genuine research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge, fraudulent data make publication unreliable, demeans the credibility of the author and reduces faith in science. Research misconduct includes the three cardinal sins fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. To promote highest standards in publication ethics, Committee on Publication Ethics provides advice and guidance to journals and publishers. Investigators should abide by ethical norms during the conduct of the research. Journals also maintain editorial standards and have well-defined policies for responding to misconduct. With an increase in medical publications over the years, it is important for all stakeholders to abide by publication ethics, in order to uphold the sanctity of research and credence in science.