bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒03‒20
twenty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. JMIR Form Res. 2022 Mar 17. 6(3): e34258 Collaborative
      BACKGROUND: The qualification and order of authorship in scientific manuscripts are the main disputes in collaborative research work.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to develop an open-access web-based platform for objective decision-making of authorship qualification and order in medical and science journals.
    METHODS: The design science process methodology was used to develop suitable software for authorship qualification and order. The first part of the software was designed to differentiate between qualification for authorship versus acknowledgment, using items of the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The second part addressed the order of authorship, using the analytical hierarchy process for objective multiple criteria decision-making and ranking. The platform was evaluated qualitatively (n=30) and quantitatively (n=18) using a dedicated questionnaire, by an international panel of medical and biomedical professionals and research collaborators worldwide.
    RESULTS: represents an open-access software compatible with all major platforms and web browsers. Software usability and output were evaluated and presented for 3 existing clinical and biomedical research studies. All 18 international evaluators felt that the platform was easy to use or remained neutral. Moreover, 59% (n=10) were satisfied with the software output results while the rest were unsure, 59% (n=10) would definitely use it for future projects while 41% (n=7) would consider it, 94% (n=16) felt it may prove useful to eliminate disputes regarding authorship, 82% (n=14) felt that it should become mandatory for manuscript submission to journals, and 53% (n=9) raised concerns regarding the potential unethical use of the software as a tool.
    CONCLUSIONS: allows transparent evaluation of authorship qualification and order in academic medical and science journals. Objectified proof of authorship contributions may become mandatory during manuscript submission in high-quality academic journals.
    Keywords:  authorship; dissent and disputes; research ethics; software design; writing
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 01.
      BACKGROUND: The current Corona crisis underscores the importance of preprints, as they allow for rapid communication of research results without delay in review. To fully integrate this type of publication into library information systems, we developed preVIEW - a publicly available, central search engine for COVID-19 preprints that clearly distinguishes this source from peer-reviewed publications. The relationship between the preprint version and its corresponding journal version should be stored as metadata in both versions so that duplicates can be easily identified and information overload for researchers is reduced.OBJECTIVE: In this work, we investigate the extent to which the relationship information between preprint and corresponding journal publication is present in the published metadata, how it can be further completed, and how it can be used in preVIEW to identify already re-published preprints and filter those duplicates in search results.
    METHODS: We first analyze the information content available at the preprint servers themselves and the information that can be retrieved via Crossref. Moreover, we develop the algorithm Pre2Pub to find the corresponding reviewed article for each preprint. We integrate the results of those different resources into our search engine preVIEW, present the information in the result set overview and add filter options accordingly.
    RESULTS: Preprints have found their place in the publication workflows, however, the link from a preprint to its corresponding journal publication is not completely covered in the metadata of the preprint servers or in Crossref. Our algorithm Pre2Pub is able to find about 16% more related journal articles with a precision of 99.27%. We also integrate this information in a transparent way within preVIEW so that researchers can use it in their search.
    CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between preprint version and its journal version is valuable information that help researchers finding only previously unknown information in preprints. As long as there is no transparent and complete way to store this relationship in metadata, the Pre2Pub algorithm is a suitable extension to retrieve this information.
  3. Cien Saude Colet. 2022 Mar;pii: S1413-81232022000300957. [Epub ahead of print]27(3): 957-968
      The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace of science. Many scientific data are published on preprint repositories, prior to peer review, which raises questions about the credibility of the information not yet validated by other scientists. We analyzed 76 stories published from January to July 2020 by three newspapers (The New York Times - USA, The Guardian - UK and Folha de S. Paulo - Brazil), having as topic studies on COVID-19 published on preprint platforms. The objective was to analyze how the media covered non-peer-reviewed research, in countries marked by conflicting discourses prompted by the denialist attitude of their government leaders. The results show that the newspapers did not provide a detailed explanation of what a preprint platform is, how the process of publishing research results works, and the implications of a study that has not yet been peer reviewed. The analysis also reveals how these news outlets were guided by the anxiety from an unknown disease, focusing on research on drug trials and seroprevalence. The study leads us to reflect on the challenges and weaknesses of covering fast science and the need to broaden the public's understanding of the methods and processes of science.
  4. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 Mar 15.
      INTRODUCTION: Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame.METHODS: The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of ≥1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation.
    RESULTS: A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014.
    CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since the inception of the Open Payments database. Our findings encourage a continued need for transparency in related payments to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, one that is separated from undue industry influence.
  5. Heliyon. 2022 Mar;8(3): e08999
      The number of publishers that offer academics, researchers, and postgraduate students the opportunity to publish articles and book chapters quickly and easily has been growing steadily in recent years. This can be ascribed to a variety of factors, e.g., increasing Internet use, the Open Access movement, academic pressure to publish, and the emergence of publishers with questionable interests that cast doubt on the reliability and the scientific rigor of the articles they publish. All this has transformed the scholarly and scientific publishing scene and has opened the door to the appearance of journals whose editorial procedures differ from those of legitimate journals. These publishers are called predatory, because their manuscript publishing process deviates from the norm (very short publication times, non-existent or low-quality peer-review, surprisingly low rejection rates, etc.). The object of this article is to spell out the editorial practices of these journals to make them easier to spot and thus to alert researchers who are unfamiliar with them. It therefore reviews and highlights the work of other authors who have for years been calling attention to how these journals operate, to their unique features and behaviors, and to the consequences of publishing in them. The most relevant conclusions reached include the scant awareness of the existence of such journals (especially by researchers still lacking experience), the enormous harm they cause to authors' reputations, the harm they cause researchers taking part in promotion or professional accreditation procedures, and the feelings of chagrin and helplessness that come from seeing one's work printed in low-quality journals. Future comprehensive research on why authors decide to submit valuable articles to these journals is also needed. This paper therefore discusses the size of this phenomenon and how to distinguish those journals from ethical journals.
    Keywords:  Academic dishonesty; Ethical scientific practices; Misconduct; Predatory journals; Scientific integrity
  6. Nature. 2022 Mar;603(7901): 393
    Keywords:  Conferences and meetings; Publishing
  7. Neuroimage. 2022 Mar 10. pii: S1053-8119(22)00185-9. [Epub ahead of print] 119056
      Good Scientific Practice (GSP) refers to both explicit and implicit rules, recommendations, and guidelines that help scientists to produce work that is of the highest quality at any given time, and to efficiently share that work with the community for further scrutiny or utilization. For experimental research using magneto- and electroencephalography (MEEG), GSP includes specific standards and guidelines for technical competence, which are periodically updated and adapted to new findings. However, GSP also needs to be periodically revisited in a broader light. At the LiveMEEG 2020 conference, a reflection on GSP was fostered that included explicitly documented guidelines and technical advances, but also emphasized intangible GSP: a general awareness of personal, organizational, and societal realities and how they can influence MEEG research. This article provides an extensive report on most of the LiveMEEG contributions and new literature, with the additional aim to synthesize ongoing cultural changes in GSP. It first covers GSP with respect to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, pre-registration as a tool to avoid those and other early pitfalls, and a number of resources to enable collaborative and reproducible research as a general approach to minimize misconceptions. Second, it covers GSP with respect to data acquisition, analysis, reporting, and sharing, including new tools and frameworks to support collaborative work. Finally, GSP is considered in light of ethical implications of MEEG research and the resulting responsibility that scientists have to engage with societal challenges. Considering among other things the benefits of peer review and open access at all stages, the need to coordinate larger international projects, the complexity of MEEG subject matter, and today's prioritization of fairness, privacy, and the environment, we find that current GSP tends to favor collective and cooperative work, for both scientific and for societal reasons.
    Keywords:  Electroencephalography (EEG); Good Scientific Practice; Magnetoencephalography (MEG)
  8. QJM. 2022 Mar 15. pii: hcac075. [Epub ahead of print]
  9. Lancet Planet Health. 2022 03;pii: S2542-5196(22)00048-1. [Epub ahead of print]6(3): e180
  10. EMBO Rep. 2022 Mar 18. e54958
      As COVID wanes and scientific conferences come back, some advice on how to deal with, organise and enjoy sharing science at meetings.
  11. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Mar 09. pii: S0210-5705(22)00086-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called "peer review", considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers and authors to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.
    Keywords:  evaluador; evaluator; investigación; investigation; peer review; publicación; publication; revisión por pares; revisor por pares
  12. JSLS. 2022 Jan-Mar;26(1):pii: e2021.00082. [Epub ahead of print]26(1):
      Background and Objectives: References for medical articles are not always retrievable. This eliminates the ability to check on the validity of statements, methodologies, data collection, and conclusions.Methods: References of review, scientific, and research articles published in the 2019 and 2020 Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons were evaluated for ability to retrieve the reference cited.
    Results: Ninety-five articles with 2,424 references were evaluated. There were 1,025 (1,025/2,424 = 42.3%) open access versus 1,399 (1,399/2,424 = 47.7%) paywall articles. There were 357 (14.7%) citations unavailable (misreference) due to bad, broken, or nonexistent links and wrong article, abstract or citation only, and missing citations.
    Conclusion: Loss of reference existence or retrievability is a scientific hazard. Science is self-correcting but is doomed to not knowing what was said or discovered when references are no longer available.
    Keywords:  Citation; Link rot; References
  13. Nature. 2022 Mar 14.
    Keywords:  Institutions; Publishing; Scientific community
  14. Nature. 2022 Mar;603(7901): 384-385
    Keywords:  Policy; Publishing; Research management
  15. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2022 Mar 14.
      INTRODUCTION: Retrospection of retracted articles had important implications for investigations into ethic of academic publishing.METHODS: We carried out searches on the Retraction Watch database for retracted articles in the field of gastroenterology.
    RESULTS: A total of 583 retractions were included and about 76 percent of them have been retracted since 2015. Over half of those retractions focused on digestive system neoplasms. Issue of reliability in contents, duplication, plagiarism were common reasons for retraction.
    DISCUSSION: Only a few retractions were due to honest errors, while many articles were retracted for authors committing some kind of misconduct.
  16. J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Mar 14. pii: fdac031. [Epub ahead of print]
      AIMS: The benefits of increasing public access to data from clinical trials are widely accepted. Such benefits extend to the sharing of data from high-quality systematic reviews, given the time and cost involved with undertaking reviews. We describe the application of open sources of review data, outline potential challenges and highlight efforts made to address these challenges, with the intent of encouraging publishers, funders and authors to consider sharing review data more broadly.RESULTS: We describe the application of systematic review data in: (i) advancing understanding of clinical trials and systematic review methods, (ii) repurposing of data to answer public health policy and practice relevant questions, (iii) identification of research gaps and (iv) accelerating the conduct of rapid reviews to inform decision making. While access, logistical, motivational and legal challenges exist, there has been progress made by systematic review, academic and funding agencies to incentivise data sharing and create infrastructure to support greater access to systematic review data.
    CONCLUSION: There is opportunity to maximize the benefits of research investment in undertaking systematic reviews by ensuring open sources of systematic review data. Efforts to create such systems should draw on learnings and principles outlined for sharing clinical trial data.
    Keywords:  data sharing; open access; systematic reviews
  17. Am J Surg. 2022 Mar 08. pii: S0002-9610(22)00152-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  Communication; Leadership; Reputation; Strategy
  18. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2022 Mar 17.
      Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research (AGMR) aims to provide new information on clinical and biological science and issues on policymaking for older adults. This article summarizes the ethical guidelines of AGMR based on relevant recommendations from the International Standards for Editors and Authors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. All authors whose articles are to be published in AGMR should refer to these guidelines, which will mention that authors need to comply with the guidelines. The editorial board will also continuously monitor our responsibilities regarding ethical publishing. The combined efforts of authors, reviewers, and editors will help maintain the scientific excellence of AGMR.
  19. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Mar;pii: e007811. [Epub ahead of print]7(3):
    Keywords:  health policies and all other topics; health policy
  20. Nature. 2022 Mar;603(7901): 363
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Research management; Society
  21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar 09. pii: S0895-4356(22)00064-6. [Epub ahead of print]
      OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency of data and code availability statements in a random sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data, summarise the content of the statements and investigate how often data and code files were shared.METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioural or educational intervention that were indexed in PubMed, Education Collection via ProQuest, Scopus via Elsevier, and Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded via Web of Science during a four-week period (between November 2nd and December 2nd, 2020). Records were randomly sorted and screened independently by two authors until our target sample of 300 systematic reviews was reached. Two authors independently recorded whether a data or code availability statement (or both) appeared in each review and coded the content of the statements using an inductive approach.
    RESULTS: Of the 300 included systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 86 (29%) had a data availability statement and seven (2%) had both a data and code availability statement. In 12/93 (13%) data availability statements, authors stated that data files were available for download from the journal website or a data repository, which we verified as being true. While 39/93 (42%) authors stated data were available upon request, 37/93 (40%) implied that sharing of data files was not necessary or applicable to them, most often because "all data appear in the article" or "no datasets were generated or analysed".
    DISCUSSION: Data and code availability statements appear infrequently in systematic review manuscripts. Authors who do provide a data availability statement often incorrectly imply that data sharing is not applicable to systematic reviews. Our results suggest the need for various interventions to increase data and code sharing by systematic reviewers.
    Keywords:  Evidence synthesis; Open data; Open science; Open synthesis; Reproducibility of research; Research integrity
  22. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022 Mar;10(3): e3808
      Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.Methods: We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.
    Results: A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (β-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (β-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (β-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).
    Conclusions: Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.