bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒10‒03
twenty-four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021 Sep 01. pii: 89750. [Epub ahead of print]22(9): 2743-2747
      Dissemination of the scientific literature is as paramount as scientific studies. Scientific publishing has come a long way from localized distribution of few physical copies of journal to widespread and rapid distribution via internet in the 21st century. The evolution of open excess (OA) publishing which has rapidly evolved in last two decades has its heart at the right place with the ultimate goal being timely, and rapid distribution of published scientific work to a wider scientific community around the world and thus ultimately promoting scientific knowledge in global sense. However, quality OA publishing of cancer research involve an average publishing fee of around 1,500 USD which poses a challenge for Low middle income countries (LMICs), where per capita income is low. This has led to deterioration of science in LMICs in the form of publication in Cheap OA predatory journals for sake of securing academic promotions as well as authors ending up paying exorbitant publishing charges out of pocket to get their quality scientific work published. In countries like India and other LMICs, the funding agencies and institution have so far not addressed this problem. Here we assess the framework of open access publishing in LMICs like India and what are the steps which can be taken to facilitate open access publishing in LMICs.
    Keywords:  Low middle income Countries (LMICs); Open Access (OA); Publication charges
  2. Account Res. 2021 Sep 27. 1-6
      Scholarly authorship confers recognition and prestige and is used for promotion and tenure. In this commentary, the authors discuss a form of guest authorship known as authorship commerce (AC). This is an extreme example of misconduct, linked to bribery, which is potentially underestimated because it is difficult to detect. Pressure to publish in high impact factor open access journals (with often high publishing fees), combined with funding policy constraints, can facilitate AC. Proactive solutions include giving junior researchers more awareness of the unethical behavior, explicit guidelines that forbit it, author declarations, ethical publication incentives and metrics, lower publishing fees, as well as more effective fee discount and waiver programs. Anonymous and protected whistleblowing channels can be used to report AC.
    Keywords:  Inappropriate authorship; authorship for sale; ethics; misconduct; open access; publishing; research integrity
  3. Nature. 2021 Oct 01.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Peer review; Publishing
  4. Nature. 2021 Sep 28.
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data
  5. Arch Cardiol Mex. 2021 Sep 30.
      Hemos leído con sumo interés el artículo publicado por Diéguez-Campa, et al.1, titulado The 2020 research pandemic: a bibliometric analysis of publications on COVID-19 and their scientific impact during the first months, en el que los autores hacen un excelente e innovador análisis bibliométrico sobre la publicación científica médica en los primeros meses de desarrollo de la pandemia de COVID-19.
  6. J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Oct 01.
    Keywords:  Accountability; Bias; Conflict of interest (COI); Inappropriate authorship; Transparency
  7. Dent Mater. 2021 Sep 28. pii: S0109-5641(21)00276-1. [Epub ahead of print]
  8. J AAPOS. 2021 Sep 25. pii: S1091-8531(21)00531-0. [Epub ahead of print]
  9. Fam Med. 2021 Sep;53(8): 670-675
      BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Online publication of prereviewed manuscripts disseminates research simultaneously to scientists, clinicians, and patients, enabling the media and public to act as scientific reviewers for studies that are not yet endorsed by the scientific and clinical community. This study describes the reach of prereview literature and frames it within the pursuit to teach evidence-based medicine.METHODS: In this deductive content analysis, the primary unit of analysis was the individual preprint manuscript submitted to the medRxiv preprint server during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The coding scheme included study design, negative or positive findings, dissemination status (whether it was withdrawn from the server or eventually published), and three levels of reach: user engagement, news media coverage, and social media engagement.
    RESULTS: Prereviewed manuscripts describe a variety of study methods. Dissemination status was significantly related to abstract views, manuscript views, news coverage, and social media exposure. Studies with negative findings had higher counts of abstract views, manuscript views, and news coverage, but no significant relationships were detected.
    CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that not only are scientists publishing negative findings, but that those studies reach a wide audience. Notably, eventually-withdrawn manuscripts, potentially containing incomplete or uncertain science, is reaching the public domain. Increasingly, family physicians will need to critically appraise emerging literature before it is peer reviewed, whether they encounter it in their own searches or when a patient presents information they found before an appointment.
  10. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Jul;19(3): e116404
    Keywords:  Citation; Journal; Publication; Reference; Science
  11. J Lipid Res. 2021 Sep 27. pii: S0022-2275(21)00106-1. [Epub ahead of print] 100124
  12. J Nucl Med Technol. 2021 Sep 28. pii: jnmt.121.263047. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  Other; editorial board; equity; gender balance
  13. AORN J. 2021 10;114(4): 319-326
      Conferences often offer a wide variety of informative podium, expert panel, and poster presentations. Conference planners use an abstract review process to select abstracts for the presentations. Although guidance exists for writing abstracts, much less information is available on reviewing abstracts and what constitutes an appropriate review. This article provides an overview of the role of an abstract reviewer and information that potential reviewers can use to improve the quality of their reviews. A competent reviewer should possess current knowledge of the profession and working knowledge of research methodology, data collection strategies, and analyses to assess an abstract. Abstract reviewers should consider the abstract in the context of the planned conference attendees, remain objective throughout the review process, and complete the review in a timely manner. Conference planners rely on objective reviews to ensure the selection of quality abstracts, which can lead to a successful conference that advances professional knowledge.
    Keywords:   abstract call ; abstract reviewer ; abstract submission ; conference planning ; rubric
  14. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(9): e0257307
      In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes.
  15. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Jul;19(3): e115242
      A cover (covering) letter is a brief business letter introducing the scientific work alongside the submission process of a manuscript and is required by most scientific peer-review journals. A typical cover letter includes the name of the editor and the journal, date of submission, the characteristics of the manuscript, the importance of the work and its relevance to prospective audiences, declarations such as author agreements, conflicts of interest statement, funding source (s), and ethical statements. The letter also includes the contact information of the corresponding author (s) and may also include suggestions of potential reviewers. Spending enough time to draft an informative, comprehensive, and concise cover letter is quite worthwhile; a poorly drafted one would not persuade the editor that the submitted work is fit for publication and may lead to immediate rejection. Here, we provide a practical guide to draft a well-written, concise, and professional cover letter for a scientific medical paper.
    Keywords:  Cover Letter; Medical Scientific Journals; Scientific Publishing; Scientific Writing
  16. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2021 Sep 29.
      PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Social media-based scientific journal clubs provide an opportunity to promote published literature to a broader audience and allow robust multi-disciplinary and inter-professional discussion. Hematopathology Journal Club (#HemepathJC) on Twitter has successfully conducted monthly sessions since November 2019, covering topics related to lymphoma and leukemia.RECENT FINDINGS: To enhance connectivity, multitasking, and productivity, we present our experience of leveraging the voice-based platform Clubhouse concurrent with Twitter. The Twitter and Clubhouse partnership for #hemepathJC holds the potential to increase dissemination of scientific knowledge and further promote journal club format discussion.
    Keywords:  Clubhouse; Hematopathology; HemepathJC; Online journal club; Social media; Twitter
  17. Cureus. 2021 Sep;13(9): e17738
      INTRODUCTION: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals.METHODS: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed.
    RESULTS: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author's specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant.
    CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor's demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.
    Keywords:  articles; journal; ophthalmology journals; peer-review; publication times; research and publication; scientific papers
  18. Front Vet Sci. 2021 ;8 745779
    Keywords:  education; education research; interdisciplinary research; methodology; open science
  19. Am J Clin Pathol. 2021 Oct 01. pii: aqab144. [Epub ahead of print]
      OBJECTIVES: To develop a structured, introductory curriculum in scientific writing and publishing for residents in anatomic pathology.METHODS: We assessed the need for this curriculum by using an online questionnaire sent to anatomic pathology residents in our program and tailored content to address areas of least familiarity. The curriculum consisted of 4 virtual lectures delivered by select experts in the field. Curriculum evaluation was assessed through a postcurriculum questionnaire.
    RESULTS: In total, 27 of 31 (87%) residents responded to the initial questionnaire. The major educational need was identified in the following topics: "responsibilities of a corresponding author"; "selecting a journal for publication"; "editor's approach to evaluating a manuscript"; "correspondence with editors and reviewers"; and "open access, cost and increasing exposure to manuscript." Eight residents participated in at least 3 of 4 lectures and completed the pre- and postcurriculum survey. The postcurriculum survey demonstrated statistically significant interval increases in familiarity with 7 of 18 topics, and the leading increases were noted in topics of most significant educational need.
    CONCLUSIONS: Development of novel curricula is vital to the ever-changing landscape of pathology resident education. This study proposes a generalizable algorithmic approach to assessing new areas of educational need and effectively addressing them through targeted curricula.
    Keywords:  Anatomic pathology; Curriculum design; Education; Publishing; Resident; Scientific writing; Training
  20. Account Res. 2021 Sep 26.
      Popular text-matching software generates a percentage of similarity - called a "similarity score" or "Similarity Index" - that quantifies the matching text between a particular manuscript and content in the software's archives, on the Internet and in electronic databases. Many evaluators rely on these simple figures as a proxy for plagiarism and thus avoid the burdensome task of inspecting the longer Similarity Reports that show the matching in detail. Yet similarity scores, though alluringly straightforward, are never enough to judge the presence (or absence) of plagiarism. Ideally, evaluators should always examine the Similarity Reports. Given the persistent use of simplistic similarity score thresholds at some academic journals and educational institutions, however, and the time that can be saved by relying on the scores, a method is arguably needed that encourages examination of the Similarity Reports but still also allows evaluators to choose to rely on the similarity scores in some instances. This article proposes a four-band method to accomplish this. Used together, the bands oblige evaluators to acknowledge the risk they take in relying on the similarity scores yet still allow them to ultimately determine whether they wish to accept that risk. The bands - for most rigor, high rigor, moderate rigor and less rigor - should be tailored to an evaluator's particular needs.
    Keywords:  Turnitin; accountability in research; iThenticate; plagiarism; publication ethics; similarity score; text-matching software