bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒01‒30
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Ir J Med Sci. 2022 Jan 24.
      BACKGROUND: One of the satisfactions of publishing a paper in an academic journal is seeing the process reach closure after potentially weeks or months of peer review and editorial processing. Typically, in the latter step, a proof is developed and the paper stays in press until the paper is assigned to a journal issue, in the case of a print journal. In some cases, it is possible to find papers that are in press for years.AIMS: Although it is unclear why this is the case, when a paper stays in an "in limbo" status for so long, it almost defeats the purpose of rapid proof and online publication.
    METHOD: The date of the last "in press" article was manually extracted and compared in 23 medicine-related journals indexed in Elsevier's Science Direct.
    RESULTS: Among the 23 journals, "in press" articles ranged from less than one month to almost 16 years.
    CONCLUSION: Editors and publishers should endeavor to publish all "in press" papers within a reasonable amount of time. If not, they should rethink their publication process so as not to leave the intellect of some academics in a perpetual state of publishing "limbo".
    Keywords:  Editorial freedom; Efficiency; Proof; Publication; Trust
  2. Indian J Community Med. 2021 Oct-Dec;46(4):46(4): 584-586
      Research is undertaken to increase scientific knowledge. Knowledge enters the domain of science after it is presented to others. Publishing research, contributes to medical community's knowledge. Research publications earn mileage to the researcher in carrier. Presently, a lot of pressure has built up on medical fraternity to publish in terms of quantity, thereby compromising the quality of papers as official bodies governing the medical professionals have linked the quantity of publications with career growth. These rules are to promote research but they create stress among medical teachers, lowering the quality of research and publications. Hence, It is the responsibility of authors to strictly follow guidelines while doing and publishing research. To promote academic research and deter plagiarism, educational institutions are to establish Academic Misconduct Panel to investigate the allegations, and report to Plagiarism Disciplinary authority which can impose penalties as conduct and publishing of research is a serious issue.
    Keywords:  Ethics; medical research; plagiarism; publication
  3. PLoS One. 2022 ;17(1): e0259238
      Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and quality. These problems could also be due to the lack of studies with the peer-review texts for various proprietary and confidentiality clauses. Peer review texts could serve as a rich source of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on understanding the scholarly communication landscape, and thereby build systems towards mitigating those pertinent problems. In this work, we present a first of its kind multi-layered dataset of 1199 open peer review texts manually annotated at the sentence level (∼ 17k sentences) across the four layers, viz. Paper Section Correspondence, Paper Aspect Category, Review Functionality, and Review Significance. Given a text written by the reviewer, we annotate: to which sections (e.g., Methodology, Experiments, etc.), what aspects (e.g., Originality/Novelty, Empirical/Theoretical Soundness, etc.) of the paper does the review text correspond to, what is the role played by the review text (e.g., appreciation, criticism, summary, etc.), and the importance of the review statement (major, minor, general) within the review. We also annotate the sentiment of the reviewer (positive, negative, neutral) for the first two layers to judge the reviewer's perspective on the different sections and aspects of the paper. We further introduce four novel tasks with this dataset, which could serve as an indicator of the exhaustiveness of a peer review and can be a step towards the automatic judgment of review quality. We also present baseline experiments and results for the different tasks for further investigations. We believe our dataset would provide a benchmark experimental testbed for automated systems to leverage on current NLP state-of-the-art techniques to address different issues with peer review quality, thereby ushering increased transparency and trust on the holy grail of scientific research validation. Our dataset and associated codes are available at
  4. Radiology. 2022 Jan 25. 212527
      Background Editorial board members may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COIs). Purpose To investigate the frequency and amount of payments from industry to editorial board members of imaging-related journals and whether they are in agreement with the disclosure status as provided by the journal. Materials and Methods Editorial board members of 15 U.S.-based imaging-related journals who were listed in the Open Payments database (OPD) were included. Payments from industry to editorial board members in the year 2020 were extracted from the OPD and compared with publicly available COI disclosure data as provided by the journals. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 519 editorial board members were included, of whom 214 (41%) received industry payment and 305 (59%) did not. Payments to editorial board members by the industry ranged from $12.63 to $404 625.47 (median, $2397.48). Most payments from industry (59%) were ascribed to consulting. Editorial board members of the journals JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging and Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology received significantly higher amounts of individual payments from industry than editorial board members of most other journals. Financial COI disclosures were not publicly listed for 413 of the 519 (80%) editorial board members, 169 of whom received payments from industry according to the OPD. Of the 106 editorial board members whose financial COI disclosures were publicly listed, 36 (34%) were discordant with the OPD. Conclusion Payments from industry to Open Payments database-listed editorial board members of imaging-related journals are prevalent. Imaging-related journals often do not report or do not accurately report payments from industry to their editorial board members © RSNA, 2022.
  5. Med Sci Law. 2022 Jan 25. 258024221075469
      During public health pandemics such as COVID-19, cooperative behaviors among scientists, journal editors, policy makers and research ethics committees, are essential to promote scientific integrity and societal trust in translational research and resultant public health decisions. This cooperation is possible by expanding the current way of working to include stakeholders beyond the research team via community events and special communication channels sponsored by research ethics committees. Research ethics committees with wider communication channels, increased transparency, and enhanced knowledge exchange have the potential to improve research design, performance, dissemination, and ultimately public benefit.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; ethics committee; pandemics; peer review; public health policy; publishing; research; research integrity