bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒05‒23
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Sci Adv. 2021 May;pii: eabd1705. [Epub ahead of print]7(21):
      We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more "interesting," they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.
  2. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2021 May 11. pii: S1744-3881(21)00111-0. [Epub ahead of print] 101412
    Keywords:  Biomedical publishing; Publication ethics; Research methodology; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct
  3. Scientometrics. 2021 May 08. 1-6
      Logically, and by most common standards, academics would be pleased to be cited, considering it a form of recognition of their intellect. In return, especially those with high citation counts, such as Clarivate Analytics' Highly Cited Researchers, can benefit through peer recognition, rewards, funding, securing a better position, or expanding a collaborative network. Despite known and untold benefits, one issue has not been discussed: the right to refuse to be cited or the right to refuse a citation. Academics might not want to be cited by papers published in truly predatory journals, papers with false authors, or sting papers with falsified elements that employ underhanded ethical tactics. Currently, academics generally have the freedom to select where they publish their findings and choose studies they cite, so it is highly probable that requests to remove citations or refuse citations might never become formal publishing policy. Nonetheless, this academic discussion is worth having as valid and invalid literature increasingly gets mixed through citations, and as the grey zone between predatory/non-predatory and scholarly/unscholarly becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.
    Keywords:  Author- and journal-based metrics; Citation boosting and manipulation; Predatory publishing
  4. Res Nurs Health. 2021 May 20.
      Findings from qualitative research may make valuable contributions to the evidence informing healthcare practice. Qualitative research methodologies and methods, however, are less familiar to health researchers and research consumers when compared with quantitative methods. Qualitative research reporting guidelines and their merit have been hotly debated for at least two decades. Herein I discuss two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines endorsed by many high tiered health research journals: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research and Standards for reporting qualitative research. Six aspects of the two sets of guidelines are compared. The first aspect is the focus of the guidelines. The latter five aspects are items included in the guidelines: reflexivity, participant sampling and saturation, data collection, member checking, and data analysis. Except for reflexivity, these items were selected for comparison as they include features of, or strategies to, enhance the rigor of qualitative research that are applicable within some but not all qualitative methodologies. Reflexivity, a central feature of rigor within all qualitative research, is discussed for its suboptimal representation in both sets of reporting guidelines. Without regular and critical review of reporting guidelines, efforts to promote the design, conduct, and reporting of rigorous qualitative health research to support evidence-informed practice may be undermined. Moreover, for qualitative research reporting guidelines to be useful, they must be applied appropriately and in a flexible manner by researchers and reviewers. This paper has implications for researchers, journal editors, reviewers, and research consumers.
    Keywords:  epistemology; methodological research; philosophy of science; qualitative methods
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 17. 23(5): e25077
      BACKGROUND: Authorship teams in the health professions are typically composed of scholars who are acquainted with one another before a manuscript is written. Even if a scholar has identified a diverse group of collaborators outside their usual network, writing an article with a large number of co-authors poses significant logistical challenges.OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a novel method for establishing and facilitating large-scale manuscript collaborations via social media.
    METHODS: On September 11, 2020, I used the social media platform Twitter to invite people to collaborate on an article I had drafted. Anyone who wanted to collaborate was welcome, regardless of discipline, specialty, title, country of residence, or degree completion. During the 25 days that followed, I used Google Docs, Google Sheets, and Google Forms to manage all aspects of the collaboration.
    RESULTS: The collaboration resulted in the completion of 2 manuscripts in a 25-day period. The International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria were met by 40 collaborators for the first article ("Documenting Social Media Engagement as Scholarship: A New Model for Assessing Academic Accomplishment for the Health Professions") and 35 collaborators for the second article ("The Benefits of Using Social Media as a Health Professional in Academia"). The authorship teams for both articles were notably diverse, with 17%-18% (7/40 and 6/35, respectively) of authors identifying as a person of color and/or underrepresented minority, 37%-38% (15/40 and 13/35, respectively) identifying as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer and/or questioning), 73%-74% (29/40 and 26/35, respectively) using she/her pronouns, and 20%-23% (9/40 and 7/35, respectively) identifying as a person with a disability.
    CONCLUSIONS: Scholars in the health professions can use this paper in conjunction with the tools provided to replicate this process in carrying out their own large-scale manuscript collaborations.
    Keywords:  collaboration; crowdsourcing; health professions; literature; medicine; research; scholarship; social media
  6. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021 May 17. pii: ijspp.2021-0152. [Epub ahead of print] 1-2
  7. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(5): e0251440
      BACKGROUND: Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines.METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched.
    RESULTS: Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines.
    CONCLUSION: This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.
    PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry ( reviewregistry881.
  8. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2021 May 13. pii: S1063-4584(21)00733-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  open access publishing; patient-centered care; peer review; plain-language summary; professional–patient relations; research
  9. J Card Fail. 2021 May 14. pii: S1071-9164(21)00155-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  FOAMED; Twitter; journal club
  10. Clin Neuroradiol. 2021 May 21.
  11. J Pediatr Health Care. 2021 May-Jun;35(3):pii: S0891-5245(21)00022-5. [Epub ahead of print]35(3): 257