bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒09‒05
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2021 Aug 09.
      Coronavirus pandemic has radically changed the scientific world. During these difficult times, standard peer-review processes could be too long for the continuously evolving knowledge about this disease. We wanted to assess whether the use of other types of network could be a faster way to disseminate the knowledge about Coronavirus disease. We retrospectively analyzed the data flow among three distinct groups of networks during the first three months of the pandemic: PubMed, preprint repositories (biorXiv and arXiv) and social media in Italy (Facebook and Twitter). The results show a significant difference in the number of original research articles published by PubMed and preprint repositories. On social media, we observed an incredible number of physicians participating to the discussion, both on three distinct Italian-speaking Facebook groups and on Twitter. The standard scientific process of publishing articles (i.e., the peer-review process) remains the best way to get access to high-quality research. Nonetheless, this process may be too long during an emergency like a pandemic. The thoughtful use of other types of network, such as preprint repositories and social media, could be taken into consideration in order to improve the clinical management of COVID-19 patients.
  2. Med Sci Educ. 2020 Sep;30(3): 1263-1266
      Publishing medical research is an increasingly competitive process for junior researchers. One critical step is revising a manuscript with editorial team feedback. This article's purpose is to utilize a novel example-based learning approach to provide trainees and junior faculty with ten steps on how to successfully navigate the manuscript peer-review process. To this end, each step in the proposed guide is correlated with the authors' most recent publication experience, with key manuscript and editor response letter versions made available through an open-access digital repository.
    Keywords:  Example-based learning; Knowledge acquisition; Medical student research; Peer-review publication; Teaching methods
  3. Conserv Biol. 2021 Sep 03.
      Wildlife and conservation journals must do more to ensure qualitative research contributions are reviewed appropriately and fairly. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
  4. Trends Ecol Evol. 2021 Aug 26. pii: S0169-5347(21)00218-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      We propose 'triple-blind review' for peer-reviewed journals - a process that keeps author identities and affiliations blind to manuscript editors until after first appraisal. Blinded appraisal will help to reduce the biases that negatively affect under-represented and minority scientists, ultimately better supporting equity in scientific publishing.
  5. Eur J Emerg Med. 2021 Aug 26.
      INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess for spin - a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms - within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM).METHODS: PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
    RESULTS: Our PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common: (1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication.
    CONCLUSION: Spin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts.
  6. JB JS Open Access. 2021 Jul-Sep;6(3):pii: e21.00019. [Epub ahead of print]6(3):
      Inappropriate referencing of the existing literature has the potential to propagate false information. Quotation errors are defined as citations in which the referenced article fails to substantiate the authors' claims. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of quotation errors in high-impact general orthopaedic and sports medicine journals and to determine whether there are article or journal-related factors that are related to the rate of inaccuracies.Methods: A total of 250 citations from the 5 orthopaedic and sports medicine journals with the highest impact factors in 2019 (per Journal Citation Reports) were chosen using a random sequence generator. Reviewers rated the chosen citations by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and conclusions of the referenced source to determine whether quotation errors were present. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for article- and journal-related factors related to the rate of quotation errors.
    Results: The overall quotation error rate was 13.6%. A total of 2.8% of the claims were completely unsubstantiated. The number of quotation errors did not significantly differ between the included journals. Single citations were significantly more likely than string citations to result in citations that could not be fully substantiated (χ2 = 4.57; odds ratio = 2.22; 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 4.66; p = 0.03). No relationship was found between the rate of quotation errors and the total number of citations in the article, study type, or the graded level of evidence of the article.
    Conclusions: Quotation errors in high-impact factor orthopaedic and sports medicine journals are common. This is particularly important given the higher likelihood that studies in these journals are cited elsewhere, thus propagating the inaccuracies. Efforts from both authors and journals are needed to reduce quotation errors in the orthopaedic literature.
  7. J World Fed Orthod. 2021 Sep;pii: S2212-4438(21)00034-5. [Epub ahead of print]10(3): 87-88
  8. Nature. 2021 Sep;597(7874): 141-142
    Keywords:  Databases; Machine learning; Publishing; Software