bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒01‒16
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Public Underst Sci. 2022 Jan 11. 9636625211065743
      The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication - how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on - shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: 'Public Understanding of Science', 'Public Engagement with Science' and 'Strategic Science Communication'. The results suggest that the 'Strategic Science Communication' model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The 'Public Engagement' model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while 'Public Understanding' is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics' mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.
    Keywords:  mental models; public engagement with science; public understanding of science; science communication; strategic science communication
  2. Scientometrics. 2022 Jan 04. 1-8
      The main purpose of this short communication is to identify and analyze retracted editorials in the biomedical literature. Twenty-five of the 33 editorials are chosen for further analysis. All of the editorials were published as commentaries and concise reviews between 1998 and 2021. Due to plagiarism and data-related issues, the majority of the editorial articles were retracted. Alarmingly, one-fifth of the editorials were funded by external agencies, with the USA leading the list of retracted editorials. The average time between the publication of the editorials and their retraction is 2.48 years, and two editorials were retracted with the longest durations; both were written by the same author. The conclusion is that, at the very least, editorial articles should be devoid of research/scientific misconduct.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Editorials; PubMed; Publication ethics; Reasons; Retractions
  3. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 ;6 748095
      The current digital content industry is heavily oriented towards building platforms that track users' behaviour and seek to convince them to stay longer and come back sooner onto the platform. Similarly, authors are incentivised to publish more and to become champions of dissemination. Arguably, these incentive systems are built around public reputation supported by a system of metrics, hard to be assessed. Generally, the digital content industry is permeable to non-human contributors (algorithms that are able to generate content and reactions), anonymity and identity fraud. It is pertinent to present a perspective paper about early signs of track and persuasion in scholarly communication. Building our views, we have run a pilot study to determine the opportunity for conducting research about the use of "track and persuade" technologies in scholarly communication. We collected observations on a sample of 148 relevant websites and we interviewed 15 that are experts related to the field. Through this work, we tried to identify 1) the essential questions that could inspire proper research, 2) good practices to be recommended for future research, and 3) whether citizen science is a suitable approach to further research in this field. The findings could contribute to determining a broader solution for building trust and infrastructure in scholarly communication. The principles of Open Science will be used as a framework to see if they offer insights into this work going forward.
    Keywords:  authors; infrastructure; open science; persuade; readers; scholarly communication; track; trust
  4. Heliyon. 2021 Dec;7(12): e08638
      Regardless of multiple efforts carried out across many countries to disseminate the ideas and the practice of open science, most scholars in the early 2020s do not self-archive their research articles and do not publish research papers in preprint form. Having received no education and training on open science, researchers are often puzzled on what to do, in practice, to start reaping the benefits of open science. This study offers a succinct vademecum on how to benefit from the open science approach to scholarly communication, no matter whether in natural or in humanistic and social sciences.
    Keywords:  Open access; Open science; Preprint; Scholarly publishing; Self-archiving
  5. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022 Jan 11. pii: zxac005. [Epub ahead of print]
      In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
    Keywords:  learners; new practitioners; peer review; publication; research; residents
  6. Nature. 2022 Jan 10.
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life; Research management
  7. Account Res. 2022 Jan 11.
      The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 06 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported.The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved.
    Keywords:  Peer review; bias; editorial policy; ethics
  8. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2022 Jan 05. pii: S0035-3787(21)00774-8. [Epub ahead of print]
      We have reviewed seminal interactions between British and French physicians prior to and following the establishment of the Paris and London Schools of Neurology from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries. Our first article focused on British and French physicians, places and events. In this second part of our review we have examined the interactions between British and French Neurological Societies and Journals, including: (1) The Neurological Society of London founded in 1886, which became the Section of Neurology of the Royal Society of Medicine; (2) The Société de Neurologie de Paris founded in 1899, later renamed as The Société Française de Neurologie; (3) The journal Brain and its precursors and successors; (4) The journal Revue Neurologique and its precursors. We illustrate the constructive influence of Anglo-French interactions on the early development of neurology by the distinguished physicians who were corresponding members respectively of the British and French Neurological Societies and the scientific articles published by French authors in Brain and by British scientists in Nouvelle Iconographie de la Salpêtrière, Archives de Neurologie and Revue Neurologique.
    Keywords:  Brain; History of neurology; London Neurological Society; Revue Neurologique; Société de neurologie de Paris
  9. Public Underst Sci. 2022 Jan 13. 9636625211057231
      This study examines science communication within Ask Me Anything sessions hosted by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists on Reddit. In addition to considering a unique social media platform, our work makes an important contribution in revealing the limitations of a traditional approach to studying science communication and modeling an alternative. First, using an "assembled" approach, we qualitatively explore themes in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists' posts and consider how they reflect the goals of "deficit" and "dialogue" models. Second, using a "disassembling" approach, inspired by Davies and Horst and actor-network theory, we more deeply examine our experiences studying the Ask Me Anything sessions. We then demonstrate how this alternative approach identifies "hidden" human and non-human actants that may have shaped science communication as "mediators." We use these insights to reject the common assumption that science communication on social media occurs solely and directly between scientists and publics.
    Keywords:  environmental communications; interaction experts/publics; science communication; social media
  10. Value Health Reg Issues. 2022 Jan-Feb;27:pii: S2212-1099(21)00148-5. [Epub ahead of print]27 110-114
      OBJECTIVES: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are comparative analyses of courses of action in terms of both costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) original version and its adaptation to Spanish were published in 2013. Its objectives were to promote that the HEEs are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making and serve as a reporting guide. The new CHEERS 2022 replaces the previous one and tries to be more easily applied to any HEE and incorporates recent methodological advances and the importance of stakeholder involvement including patients and the general public.METHODS: For the present adaptation, the following stages were followed: (1) independent translations of the original list into Spanish, (2) blind back-translations, (3) evaluation of their quality, (4) preparation of a new version in Spanish, (5) review and improvement by the author team, (6) preparation of a new version in Spanish, (7) distribution of the preliminary Spanish version and the original one to the American HTA Network (Red de las Américas de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias) and Spanish-speaking experts for evaluation and feedback, (8) monitoring of changes to the original list under peer review at BritishMedicalJournal, and (9) consolidation of the final adaptation of the Spanish CHEERS 2022 checklist.
    RESULTS: In this article, we detail the process and the Spanish adaptation of the 28-item CHEERS 2022 checklist and its recommendations.
    CONCLUSIONS: This list is intended for researchers reporting HEE in peer-reviewed journals and reviewers, editors, and, among others, health technology assessment bodies.
    Keywords:  economic evaluations; methodological guidelines; reporting standards
  11. BJOG. 2022 Feb;129(3): 336-344
    CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force
      Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
  12. Hum Factors. 2022 Jan 13. 187208211070497
      Today's challenges for scientific publications require operating at a time when trust in science depends upon effective vetting of data, identifying questionable practices, and scrutinizing research. The Editor-in-Chief has an invaluable opportunity to influence the direction and reputation of our field but also has the responsibility to confront contemporary trends that threaten the publication of quality research. The editor is responsible for maintaining strict scientific standards for the journal through the exercise of good judgment and steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical principles. Opportunities exist to create and implement new initiatives for improving the peer review process and elevating the journal's stature. The journal must address the challenges as well as effectively communicate with the public, who seek a reliable source of information.
    Keywords:  public communication ; research integrity; research transparency; trust in science
  13. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Jan 11. 22(1): 32
      BACKGROUND: The execution of undergraduate thesis is a period in which students have an opportunity to develop their scientific knowledge. However, many barriers could prevent the learning process. This cross-sectional study aimed to analyze the scientific dissemination of results from undergraduate theses in physical therapy programs and verify the existence of barriers and challenges in the preparation of undergraduate thesis. Second, to investigate whether project characteristics and thesis development barriers were associated with the dissemination of undergraduate thesis results.METHODS: Physical therapists who graduated as of 2015, from 50 different educational institutions, answered an online questionnaire about barriers faced during the execution of undergraduate thesis and about scientific dissemination of their results.
    RESULTS: Of 324 participants, 43% (n = 138) of participants disseminated their results, and the main form of dissemination was publishing in national journals (18%, n = 58). Regarding the barriers, 76% (n = 246) of participants reported facing some difficulties, and the main challenge highlighted was the lack of scientific knowledge (28%, n = 91). Chances of dissemination were associated with barriers related to scientific understanding and operational factors, such as the type of institution, institutional facilities, and involvement with other projects.
    CONCLUSION: Scientific knowledge seems to be a determining factor for the good development of undergraduate theses. In addition, it is clear the need to stimulate more qualified dissemination that reaches a larger audience. Changes in operational and teaching factors may improve the undergraduate thesis quality. However, the importance of rethinking scientific education within physical therapy programs draws attention.
    Keywords:  Education; Evidence-based practice; Information science; Scholarly communication; Teacher training; Translational medical research
  14. Open Biol. 2022 Jan;12(1): 210378
      Open Biology is 10 years old and we have much to celebrate. Open Biology launched as the Royal Society's first fully online, open access journal dedicated to cell and molecular biology. The underlying principle of Open Biology is to enable discoveries to be quickly and easily disseminated through the community, and in this vein in the first 10 years of the journal we have introduced format-free submission, mandated open peer review where the reviews and author responses are published with the paper, and established our enthusiastic Preprint Team under the guidance of Prof. Michael Ginger. Credit for most of this success is due to the guiding hand of David Glover, our founding editor, and the team at Royal Society Publishing.