bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒11‒28
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Elife. 2021 Nov 24. pii: e74744. [Epub ahead of print]10
      Concealing the identity of the principal investigator only partially closes the success gap between white and African American or Black researchers in NIH grant applications.
    Keywords:  cell biology; funding; halo effects; medicine; none; peer review; racial bias; racial disparities
  2. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Dec;72 103047
      Objective: We aimed to evaluate the role of anesthesiologist in the management of hydatid disease from the perspective of the editors, reviewers and the authors.Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline database using the following keywords: (hydatid* OR echinococc*) AND (disease OR cyst) AND (anesthesiology). We have evaluated the authors, their institutions and department, and the aim of the studies. We also evaluated the studies published by anesthesiologists in terms of content.
    Results: The literature search showed 6344 articles published between February 2010 to 2021. Sixty-three had at least one anesthesiologist in the author list. Anesthesiologists were leading authors in 35 studies; and in 19 of them, all the authors were anesthesiologist. Sixteen (84.2%) of these articles defined the outcomes of surgical therapy and there was no information regarding anesthesia technique.
    Conclusion: The results of our study emphasize an important controversy regarding jurisdiction of different departments in terms of scientific research ethics. We believe that different disciplines can work together to evaluate a scientific problem and can publish a study in collaboration. But collaboration is very important and violating the subject of another field without collaboration is a deontological problem.
    Keywords:  Anesthesiologist's responsibility; Follow up; Hydatid disease; Postoperative management; Preoperative assessment; Surgeon's responsibility
  3. Int J Cancer. 2021 Nov 22.
      Biomedical researchers routinely use a variety of biological models and resources, such as cultured cell lines, antibodies and laboratory animals. Unfortunately, these resources are not flawless: cell lines can be misidentified; for antibodies, problems with specificity, lot-to-lot consistency, and sensitivity are common; and the reliability of animal models is questioned due to poor translation of animal studies to human clinical trials. In some cases, these problems can render the results of a study meaningless. As a response, some journals have implemented guidelines regarding the use and reporting of cell lines, antibodies, and laboratory animals. In this study we use a portfolio of existing and newly created datasets to investigate identification and authentication information of cell lines, antibodies and organisms before and after guideline introduction, compared to journals without guidelines. We observed a general improvement of reporting quality over time, which the implementation of guidelines accelerated only in some cases. We therefore conclude that the effectiveness of journal guidelines is likely to be context dependent, affected by factors such as implementation conditions, research community support, and monitoring and resource availability. Hence, journal reporting guidelines in themselves are not a quick fix to repair shortcomings in biomedical resource documentation, even though they can be part of the solution. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  biomedical resources, cell line authentication, journal guidelines; replication crisis; reporting standards
  4. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2021 ;11(6): 817-820
      Clinical peer review, a process mandated across all hospitals in the USA, originated as a measure to protect patients by ensuring a standardized level of medical service that is provided by all practicing physicians. The process involves retrospective chart reviewing to assess the quality of patients' care provided by physicians as well as adherence to the most appropriate guidelines. The process of clinical peer review almost entirely serves its ultimate purpose in quality preservation; However, certain laws gave immunity to reviewers resulting in abuse and using the clinical peer review process for secondary gain. Some notable cases of abuse were discussed in the article, we also shed light on two forms of bias that can potentially interfere with the review process and the dreaded outcomes that come along a negative peer review. We also propose methods to overcome these biases to further standardize and improve this crucial process.
    Keywords:  Clinical peer review; clinical bias; policy improvement; policy reform; quality improvement
  5. PLoS Biol. 2021 Nov;19(11): e3001133
      Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.
  6. Epilepsy Behav Rep. 2021 ;16 100493
      There has been increasing interest by the general public to read and share mainstream medical and scientific literature. Consequently, more and more medical journals are adopting strategies to make complex literature more accessible to the lay public. One such strategy is the creation of so called "lay summaries". The benefits of lay summaries can include wider dissemination of knowledge, and is increasingly being recognized as a unique expertise by authors. While on the surface, it may seem to be an easy task to translate scientific literature into a lay summary. However, occasionally authors who are experienced in communicating complex information to a peer group, may struggle with translating their work to an audience with limited medical or scientific background. The objective of this review is to discuss strategies that scientific writers may consider to better facilitate translating scientific literature into lay summaries.
    Keywords:  Communication; Epilepsy; Lay summaries; Scientific writing
  7. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021 ;3 100208
      We describe events arising from the case of Joby Rowe, convicted of the homicide of his three month old daughter, and explore what they illustrate about systemic problems in the forensic science community in Australia. A peer reviewed journal article that scrutinized the forensic evidence presented in the Rowe case was retracted by a forensic science journal for reasons unrelated to quality or accuracy, under pressure from forensic medical experts criticized in the article. Details of the retraction obtained through freedom of information mechanisms reveal improper pressure and subversion of publishing processes in order to avoid scrutiny. The retraction was supported by the editorial board and two Australian forensic science societies, which is indicative of serious deficiencies in the leadership of forensic science in Australia. We propose paths forward including blind peer review, publication of expert reports, and a criminal cases review authority, that would help stimulate a culture that encourages scrutiny, and relies on evidence-based rather than eminence-based knowledge.
    Keywords:  Abusive head trauma; Forensic science; Scientific publishing; Shaken baby syndrome
  8. Br J Psychol. 2021 Nov 24.
      Ad hominem discourse is largely prohibited in scientific journals. Historically, this prohibition restricted the dissemination of ad hominem discussion, but during the last decade, blogs and social media platforms became popular among researchers. With the use of social media now entrenched among researchers, there are important questions about the role of ad hominems. Ad hominems and other forms of strong criticism became particularly evident in online discussions associated with the recent replication crisis in psychology. Here, these discussions, and a few incidences of ad hominems in journal articles, are situated in the broader history of science. It is argued that explicit codes of conduct should be considered to curb certain kinds of ad hominem comments in certain fora, but that some ad hominem discussions have an important role to play in a healthier science.
    Keywords:  meta-science; replication crisis; social media
  9. Therapie. 2021 Oct 29. pii: S0040-5957(21)00214-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Hydroxychloroquine; Peer review; Predatory journals; Push-scooters
  10. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec;69(12): 3719-3725
      This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall's, Cabell's, Manca's, and Strinzel's list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50-500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50-3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; PubMed; Scimago; predatory publishing
  11. Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Dec 01. 87(6): e171-e179
      ABSTRACT: Academic publishing has undergone a transition from print-based, subscription access journals targeted toward physicians and scientists to the widely accessible, open access (OA) format made possible by the Internet. The objectives of OA broadly include audience expansion and improved public access to publicly funded research, reduction of limitations on content reuse and alteration, and prompt turnaround from submission to publication. Despite well-intended founding principles, unexpected disadvantages of the OA model have arisen including the emergence of predatory journals, which exploit the author-pays publishing model with the deceptive promise of reputable publishing platforms. Predatory journals can be difficult to discern from the legitimate yet unsophisticated novice journal, which represents a destructive influence on the credibility of surgeons and scientists within many specialties. As an author, when the highly reputable, "whitelisted" journals in our field are not available or interested in the scope of our work, how can we ensure authenticity of those journals that exist in the gray area between legitimate and illegitimate? Given these questions, the goal of this article is to demystify the history and selected issues that surround academic publication including content access, licensing, indexing, and journal metrics. With this background, we then evaluate highly visible OA journals in plastic and reconstructive surgery and build a basic framework, which authors can use to evaluate a journal for legitimacy and visibility.
  12. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2021 Jan.-Mar;19(73):19(73): 1-2
  13. J Physician Assist Educ. 2021 Dec 01. 32(4): 237-241
      ABSTRACT: Publishing scholarly work offers several benefits for physician assistants (PAs) in faculty roles. It allows them to establish expertise, disseminate knowledge, and advance their careers. However, due to a variety of barriers, PAs are often unable to build a portfolio of scholarly articles. They frequently lack the time, training, experience, and resources to complete large academic projects and navigate the complex publication process. This article offers 6 key strategies to help PAs in academic settings pursue scholarly work and achieve publication.
  14. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2021 Nov 25.
      Background/aim: Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research held its inaugural international editorial board virtual meeting on September 16, 2021, to brainstorm ideas for sustainable growth. This special article summarizes the key concepts obtained from the webinar proceedings, with further development of ideas from ensuing discussions occurring after the meeting.Methods: From the initial discussion points provided by eight editorial board members, including six presenters, email discussions further enriched these ideas to construct the current special article. The key points discussed were: 1) impactful research and impact factors, 2) international and Asian perspectives, and 3) challenges to sustainable growth.
    Results: The editors noted the existing gap between the impact factor and research impact as a challenge for the growth paths of regional journals. However, they agreed that persevering with impactful research would ultimately translate into parallel and gradual gains in impact, which is, therefore, consistent with the organic growth of the journal. Acknowledging challenges in navigating between unique Asian perspectives and international outlooks, the editors encouraged academic journals to serve as bridges linking international evidence with the richness of local perspectives. For sustainable growth, the editors suggested that journals may be forged into the academic ecosystems of the region, diversify value streams, and establish themselves as reputable brands in disciplines.
    Conclusion: By combining these discussions, we proposed the 'IMPACT' strategy for journals on the growth path in the region, which stands for 1) IMmersive user experience encompassing authors, reviewers, and readers; 2) Pasteur's quadrant use-inspired research; 3) Asia-Pacific context; 4) Collaborative; and 5) Translation to practice and policy.
    Keywords:  aging; cultural diversity; journals; publishing; regional health planning
  15. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2021 Nov 26. e13741
      Acta Physiologica is committed to upholding the highest possible standards in the quality of reporting of biomedical research data. Thus, Guidelines for Good Publishing Practice in Physiology are published and updated biennially, to aid and guide authors, editors and reviewers alike in maintaining these standards [1].
  16. Surgery. 2021 Nov 22. pii: S0039-6060(21)01098-9. [Epub ahead of print]
  17. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2021 12;92(4): 873