bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒06‒12
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 ;7 881250
    Keywords:  dashboards; evidence synthesis; open data; scientific communication; user-centered design
  2. Nature. 2022 06;606(7913): 250
    Keywords:  Funding; Peer review; Publishing
  3. J Gen Philos Sci. 2022 Jun 01. 1-17
      Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.
    Keywords:  Amendment; Corrigendum; Editors; Erratum; Errors; Integrity; Open science; Peer review; Post-publication peer review; Preprint; Responsibility; Retractions
  4. J Perinatol. 2022 Jun 06.
      A recent shift in public attention to racism, racial disparities, and health equity have resulted in an abundance of calls for relevant papers and publications in academic journals. Peer-review for such articles may be susceptible to bias, as subject matter expertise in the evaluation of social constructs, like race, is variable. From the perspective of researchers focused on neonatal health equity, we share our positive and negative experiences in peer-review, provide relevant publicly available data regarding addressing bias in peer-review from 12 neonatology-focused journals, and give recommendations to address bias and knowledge gaps in the peer review process of health equity research.
  5. Fam Syst Health. 2022 Jun;40(2): 147-151
      Our annual coeditors' retreat is a time to step back from the words on the page and reflect on our values for this work. Our values set the course for goals and subsequent actions for the year. In our 3 days away from the office to focus on the journal, we have the quiet space to set intentions. Then, we set timelines, we send emails, we put things in motion. We came to this year's retreat prepared to consider a critical topic: equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). That Families, Systems, & Health (FSH) recruit, welcome, review, and publish science that is representative of the widest range of experience and perspective is a core value for us as coeditors. We feel we have a moral and ethical obligation as leaders, scientists, and humans, to pursue social justice and equitable health outcomes for all. Such efforts are needed to help rectify the longstanding history of systemic racism and discrimination against minoritized communities that continues even today. In the context of recent events including protests against racial injustices as well as health disparities experienced by people of color during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the scientific community is realizing we can no longer remain bystanders. Our role as coeditors of a journal affords the opportunity to support equitable and inclusive practices representing a diverse array of individuals and communities throughout the peer review and publication process, which not only enhances equity but also improves science. In exploratory conversations with our leadership team (i.e., coeditors, associate editors, and department editors) and editorial board, we knew that all of us were of a mind in our values and aspirations to improve EDI in FSH. We write this editorial to transparently communicate in a way that provides context for recent and upcoming changes in journal processes designed to support EDI. We want to clearly state our intentions to work on improving EDI throughout all aspects of FSH. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
  6. Acad Radiol. 2022 Jun 02. pii: S1076-6332(22)00306-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      Junior Neuroradiology investigators face a rapidly expanding universe of potential journals for manuscript submission. Each journal possesses many unique features, including scope/breadth of research focus, willingness to accept specific types of articles (for example, Review Articles, or Case Reports), status of indexing on major academic indices, scholarly relevance (usually defined as Impact Factor) and access type (Open Access, subscription, or Hybrid Access). An uninformed choice of target journal can burden not only Editors and Reviewers but also increase the effort and frustration level of relatively inexperienced investigators and ultimately result in a worthy manuscript not getting published. In order to assist Junior Neuroradiology investigators in optimizing journal selection for manuscript submission, we provide a Primer that includes background information on all the journal features listed previously. We also provide detailed tabular data for all Radiology, Neuroradiology, and associated Neuroscience Clinical Journals that follow proper academic standards as a quick and useful reference guide for optimal journal selection.
    Keywords:  Fellow education; Hybrid journal; Index factor; Neuroradiology; Open access; Predatory journal; Research; Resident education; Scholarly activity
  7. Dermatol Online J. 2022 Mar 15. 28(2):
      Medical journalism and the dissemination of peer-reviewed research serve to promote and protect the integrity of scholarship. We evaluated the publication models of dermatology journals to provide a snapshot of the current state of publishing. A total of 106 actively-publishing dermatology journals were identified using the SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR) citation database. Journals were classified by publication model (subscription-based and open-access), publishing company, publisher type (commercial, professional society, and university), MEDLINE-indexing status, and SJR indicator. Of these, 65 (61.32%) dermatology journals were subscription-based and 41 (38.68%) were open-access. In addition, 59 (55.66%) journals were indexed in MEDLINE and most were subscription-based (N=51) and published by commercial entities (N=54). MEDLINE-indexing status was significantly different across publisher types (P<0.001), access-types (P<0.001), and the top four publishers (P=0.016). Distribution of SJR indicator was significantly different across publisher types (P<0.001) and access-types (all journals, P=0.001; indexed journals only, P=0.046). More than 91% of MEDLINE-indexed titles were published by commercial entities, and among them, four companies controlled the vast majority. Discontinuation of access to any one of the top publishers in dermatology can significantly and disproportionately impact education and scholarship.
  8. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022 Jun 06. 290 981-982
      With the need to quickly advance knowledge dissemination in rapid-paced fields, and more recently in response to the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, prepublishing has been brought to the forefront. SPI-Hub™, a publicly available journal selection decision support tool, is being strategically enhanced to address prospective authors' critical needs in navigating and selecting the most appropriate preprint or traditional publication venue.
    Keywords:  Information Storage and Retrieval; Preprints; Publishing
  9. Anaesthesia. 2022 Jun 08.
    Keywords:  dissemination; impact; publishing; social media
  10. J Gambl Stud. 2022 Jun 09.
      The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016-12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.
    Keywords:  Gambling; Gambling disorder; Open science practices; Pre-registration; Problem gambling; Scoping review
  11. Brain Commun. 2022 ;4(3): fcac077
      The persistent underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) points to the need to continue promoting the awareness and understanding of this phenomenon. Being one of the main outputs of scientific work, academic publications provide the opportunity to quantify the gender gap in science as well as to identify possible sources of bias and areas of improvement. Brain Communications is a 'young' journal founded in 2019, committed to transparent publication of rigorous work in neuroscience, neurology and psychiatry. For all manuscripts (n = 796) received by the journal between 2019 and 2021, we analysed the gender of all authors (n = 7721) and reviewers (n = 4492). Overall, women were 35.3% of all authors and 31.3% of invited reviewers. A considerably higher proportion of women was found in first authorship (42.4%) than in last authorship positions (24.9%). The representation of women authors and reviewers decreased further in the months following COVID-19 restrictions, suggesting a possible exacerbating role of the pandemic on existing disparities in science publication. The proportion of manuscripts accepted for publication was not significantly different according to the gender of the first, middle or last authors, meaning we found no evidence of gender bias within the review or editorial decision-making processes at Brain Communications.
    Keywords:  STEMM; gender gap; neuroscience; science publication; women in science