bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒09‒12
ten papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Sep 09.
      BACKGROUND: Publications are an important component of academic careers.AIMS: We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere.
    METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals' Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times.
    RESULTS: We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p < 0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p < 0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p = 0.04).
    CONCLUSIONS: Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.
    Keywords:  Author fees; Gastroenterology journals; Publication costs
  2. BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 06. 11(9): e048581
      OBJECTIVE: We assessed the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs).STUDY DESIGN: This was a survey of published NMAs on drug interventions.
    SETTING: NMAs indexed in PubMed (searches updated in May 2020).
    PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Lag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the article submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation dates. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables (geographical origin, Journal Impact Factor, Scopus CiteScore, open access status) (SPSS V.24, R/RStudio).
    RESULTS: We included 1245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission was 6.8 months (204 days (IQR 95-381)), and to publication was 11.6 months. Only 5% of authors updated their search after first submission. There is a very slightly decreasing historical trend of acceptance (rho=-0.087; p=0.010), online publication (rho=-0.080; p=0.008) and indexing (rho=-0.080; p=0.007) lag times. Journal Impact Factor influenced the MeSH allocation process, but not the other lag times. The comparison between open access versus subscription journals confirmed meaningless differences in acceptance, online publication and indexing lag times.
    CONCLUSION: Efforts by authors to update their search before submission are needed to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure authors' compliance with NMA standards. The accuracy of these findings depends on the accuracy of the metadata used; as we evaluated only NMA on drug interventions, results may not be generalisable to all types of studies.
    Keywords:  clinical pharmacology; journalism (see medical journalism); medical journalism; statistics & research methods
  3. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Sep 06. 1-7
      INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Scientific reporting on major incidents, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), and disasters is challenging and made difficult by the nature of the medical response. Many obstacles might explain why there are few and primarily non-heterogenous published articles available. This study examines the process of scientific reporting through first-hand experiences from authors of published reports. It aims to identify learning points and challenges that are important to address to mitigate and improve scientific reporting after major incidents.METHODS: This was a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive literature search. Ten researchers, who had published reports on major incidents, MCIs, or disasters from 2013-2018 were included, of both genders, from eight countries on three continents. The researchers reported on large fires, terrorist attacks, shootings, complex road accidents, transportation accidents, and earthquakes.
    RESULTS: The interview was themed around initiation, workload, data collection, guidelines/templates, and motivation factors for reporting. The most challenging aspects of the reporting process proved to be a lack of dedicated time, difficulties concerning data collection, and structuring the report. Most researchers had no prior experience in reporting on major incidents. Guidelines and templates were often chosen based on how easily accessible and user-friendly they were.
    CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There are few articles presenting first-hand experience from the process of scientific reporting on major incidents, MCIs, and disasters. This study presents motivation factors, challenges during reporting, and factors that affected the researchers' choice of reporting tools such as guidelines and templates. This study shows that the structural tools available for gathering data and writing scientific reports need to be more widely promoted to improve systematic reporting in Emergency and Disaster Medicine. Through gathering, comparing, and analyzing data, knowledge can be acquired to strengthen and improve responses to future major incidents. This study indicates that transparency and willingness to share information are requisite for forming a successful scientific report.
    Keywords:  disaster; guideline; major incident; mass-casualty incident; reporting
  4. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2021 Sep 03.
      BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The spreading speed of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the medical community to produce efforts in updating and sharing the evidence about this new disease, trying to preserve the accuracy of the data but at the same time avoiding the potentially harmful delay from discovery to implementation. The aim of our analysis was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical literature in terms of proportion of COVID-19-related published papers and temporal patterns of publications within a sample of general/internal medicine and cardiology journals.METHODS: We searched through PubMed scientific papers published from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 about COVID-19 in ten major medical journals, of which five were in general/internal medicine and five in the cardiology field. We analyzed the proportion of COVID-19-related papers, and we examined temporal trends in the number of published papers.
    RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of COVID-19-related papers was 18.5% (1986/10 756). This proportion was higher among the five selected general/internal medicine journals, compared with cardiology journals (23.8% vs 9.5%). The vast majority of papers were not original articles; in particular, in cardiology journals, there were 28% 'original articles', 17% 'review articles' and 55.1% 'miscellaneous', compared with 20.2%, 5.1% and 74.7% in general/internal medicine journals, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the big impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific literature. General and internal medicine journals were mainly involved, with cardiology journals only at a later time.
  5. Lakartidningen. 2021 Aug 11. pii: 21049. [Epub ahead of print]118
      Predatory journals exploit researchers' desire for a fast review process and quick publication; this is achieved at the expense of proper scientific review and high publication costs for the authors. During the last decade, international consensus on what characterises predatory journals and publishers has emerged. The proportion of health sciences articles published in predatory journals is around 2 per cent, considerably lower than in other life sciences and social sciences.  In health sciences, China has the highest proportion of articles published in predatory journals. The phenomenon is widespread both in terms of health disciplines and geography; there are examples of Swedish health science being infiltrated. In The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, supporting predatory journals is characterised as an unacceptable practice. There are now tools to be used by researchers who want to avoid publishing in predatory journals.
  6. JSLS. 2021 Jul-Sep;25(3):pii: e2021.00010. [Epub ahead of print]25(3):
      Evaluating the quality of a scientific article has proven to be an elusive task. The most widely used bibliometric value currently used for this purpose, the journal impact factor, was not originally designed to determine the quality of research in a scientific article. Nevertheless, it has morphed into a surrogate to delineate the quality of a journal and even to represent the quality of individual articles in that that journal. Early 21st century advances in computer technology have seen an explosive revolution in scientific publication that have included open access, online publication, and world-wide accessibility to these publications. These developments have made it obvious that more sophisticated tools are required to delimit the quality of material present in the scientific literature. Usage data, which is measured as the number of full-text downloads of a specific article, is just one new method to evaluate the source of the vast material available that can be leveraged to more fully evaluate the merit of scientific literature.
    Keywords:  Altmetrics; Impact Factor; Literature Evaluation Metrics; Usage Metrics
  7. J Cell Commun Signal. 2021 Sep 08.
      The recent increase of the Journal of Cell Signaling and Communication' 2020 Impact Factor to 5.782, and its growing audience in the scientific community, provides an opportunity to step back and look at different aspects of this indicator's value. The take home message is that the top-ten major contributions to the 2020 ranking originated from North America and Europe followed by India with a high percentage of CCN-related publications and an excellent proportion of Editorial Board members' contributions to the Top10 best citations for the 2018-2019 period.
    Keywords:  Citations; ICCNS; Impact factor; JCCS; Journal ranking