bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒03‒27
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. BMC Res Notes. 2022 Mar 22. 15(1): 116
      Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that-like all researchers-senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Funding; Publishing; Reform; Replication; Reproducibility
  2. Z Orthop Unfall. 2022 Mar 21.
      BACKGROUND: Since Alexandra Elbanyan founded Sci-Hub in 2011, the website has been used by a growing number of researchers worldwide. Sci-Hub is a so-called shadow library or guerrilla open access format bypassing publishers' paywalls, giving everyone free access to scientific papers. Until today, there have been no publications about usage by orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of Sci-Hub or other "pirate sites" and how it may influence their work.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of four university hospitals in Germany and Europe were consulted using a standardised questionnaire containing multiple items about the use and evaluation of Sci-Hub. In addition, the Medline and Cochrane databases were screened for all studies related to Sci-Hub. Two reviewers independently reviewed all articles and the references of these articles.
    RESULTS: Of all orthopaedic surgeons consulted, 69% knew of Sci-Hub and 66.7% used it on a regular basis. Of the younger participants (< 45 years old), 77% knew the webpage, while only 25% of older participants (> 45 years old) knew the webpage. Ninety percent found the quality of their citation and research had been enhanced since using Sci-Hub. On a scale of 1 to 10, user-friendliness was rated with a mean rating of 7.58 (95% CI: 7.262-7.891). Ethical or legal concerns among users seem mixed. On a scale of 1 (no concerns) to 5 (many concerns), the mean score was 2.39 (95% CI: 2.154-2.615). Of doctors using Sci-Hub, 89% would recommend it to other colleagues.
    CONCLUSION: The quality and number of articles in Sci-Hub is outstanding, and the rate of young researchers using the website is high. The most important shift in literature research for decades is a phenomenon mostly used by young researchers and is not the subject of current research itself. Sci-Hub may have already changed how orthopaedic research works.
  3. Nature. 2022 Mar;603(7902): 568-571
    Keywords:  Careers; Ethics; Publishing
  4. Acad Pediatr. 2022 Mar 19. pii: S1876-2859(22)00085-7. [Epub ahead of print]
      PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate a pilot project to provide reviewer comments to authors who submitted abstracts to the Hospital-based medicine topic area for the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2021 annual meeting METHODS: : Abstract reviewers were encouraged via email to include reviewer comments for authors in their abstract reviews. Unedited comments were emailed to authors shortly after the abstract decision notifications were sent. We quantified the number of reviewers who commented per abstract. Additionally, we surveyed authors and reviewers to evaluate the perceived impact of the pilot project.RESULTS: For 123 abstracts submitted to the Hospital-based medicine topic area, every abstract received comments from at least one reviewer, and a median (IQR) of 4 (3-5) reviewers commented per abstract. The response rates for the author and reviewer surveys were 61/114 (54%) and 54/84 (64%), respectively, and both groups of respondents generally favored the pilot program. The majority of authors (59%) made changes to their project based on the feedback provided and 96% reported that they would like to continue to receive reviewer feedback for future PAS abstract submissions. Reviewers reported spending a mean of 11 minutes reviewing each abstract. Most (85%) felt that they spent the same or slightly more (1-25%) time reviewing than in prior years. Multiple open-ended comments were provided, largely positive.
    CONCLUSION: A pilot program to incorporate reviewer feedback into abstract decision notification for a large national research meeting was successful. This approach should be considered for future meetings to enhance this integral component of academic development.
    Keywords:  abstract; peer review; scientific meeting
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Mar 21.
      BACKGROUND: Open access publishing in plastic surgery has rapidly gained traction in the past decade. This study investigated the digital landscape of plastic surgery open access publishing.METHODS: This was a cross-sectional bibliometric investigation of plastic surgery-focused journals. Three publication models were investigated: subscription-only journals, hybrid journals offering both paywalled and open access publishing, and open access-only journals.
    RESULTS: Eighty-two journals were investigated. In 2010, open access journals comprised 18 percent of all plastic surgery journals online, subscription journals comprised 79 percent, and hybrid journals comprised 3 percent. Conversely, in 2020, open access journals comprised 55 percent of all journals, hybrid journals comprised 45 percent, and there were no subscription-only journals. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for article type/content demonstrated that open access articles from hybrid journals [beta coefficient, 1.3; F(4, 18) = 790; p = 0.05] and high-quality open access journals [beta coefficient, 0.9; F(4, 19) = 738; p = 0.04] were significantly positively associated with number of full-text views. Although impact factor and article processing charges were positively correlated [Pearson correlation coefficient: r(25) = 0.39, p = 0.04] for open access publishing, some high-quality open access journals were found to offer fee waivers/free publishing. Lastly, level of evidence offered by articles from open access versus hybrid journals differed.
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study highlighted important distinctions between trustworthy and predatory journals offering open access publishing in plastic surgery. Open access publishing in trustworthy sources offers greater visibility and is not necessarily cost-prohibitive, but some open access journals can be limited in scope (i.e., less coverage of subspecialty topics) and quality of content. Study findings were used to generate recommendations for navigating open access publishing in plastic surgery.
  6. Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2022 ;59(1): 1-2
  7. Psychother Psychosom. 2022 Mar 21. 1-4
    Keywords:  Goals of review article; Medical writing; Review article
  8. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Mar 17. pii: S2211-5684(22)00051-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Keywords:  Biomedical research; Medical writing; Publishing; Radiology; Writing standards
  9. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 Mar-Apr;26(2):26(2): 125-126
  10. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022 Mar 21.
      Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethnic disparities; Gender disparities; Medical journals; Racial disparities
  11. Asian J Psychiatr. 2022 Mar 12. pii: S1876-2018(22)00083-1. [Epub ahead of print]71 103085
  12. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2022 Mar;27(1): 1-5
      Taking the recent revision of the Journal's 'Standards for an Acceptable Manuscript' as a starting point, the Editor considers the meaning, durability, and implications of academic standards for journals in health professions education and those seeking to publish their work within them.