bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒10‒16
33 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Chem Biol Interact. 2022 Oct 07. pii: S0009-2797(22)00409-4. [Epub ahead of print] 110204
      The present paper reports the discovery of an October 26, 1927 letter of Hermann J. Muller concerning the owner and editor of the journal Science that suggests an agreement that could have led to Muller's publication in Science - absent any data - which was contributory to both his professional reputation, and perhaps his being considered for and awarded a Nobel Prize.
    Keywords:  Cancer risk assessment; Hermann J. Muller; Ionizing radiation; Linear dose response; Mutation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110204
  2. Nature. 2022 Oct 11.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03256-9
  3. Hosp Pediatr. 2022 Oct 10. pii: e2022006764. [Epub ahead of print]
      Scientific peer review has existed for centuries and is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Because the number of scientific publications has rapidly increased over the past decades, so has the number of peer reviews and peer reviewers. In this paper, drawing on the relevant medical literature and our collective experience as peer reviewers, we provide a user guide to the peer review process, including discussion of the purpose and limitations of peer review, the qualities of a good peer reviewer, and a step-by-step process of how to conduct an effective peer review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764
  4. Account Res. 2022 Oct 13.
      This letter to the editor briefly comments on an article published in Accountability in Research by Bolek et al. (2022), titled "The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations". It extends their study by interpreting their results as an example of "commensuration bias". Considerations for future research are presented.
    Keywords:  Peer review; commensuration bias; journalology; meta-science; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2135992
  5. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022 Oct 10. OP2200275
      PURPOSE: To investigate implicit bias (IB) in the peer review process across ASCO and Conquer Cancer Foundation and to propose potential mitigation strategies.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We, ASCO Working Group on Implicit Bias, selected four data sources: (1) literature search [(a) defining IB in peer review, (b) evidence of IB in peer review, and (c) strategies to mitigate IB]; (2) created and analyzed an ASCO database for sex, race, and institutional affiliation regarding peer review success; (3) constructed and conducted qualitative interviews of key stakeholders within the ASCO board, publications, and grants committee, on experience with IB within ASCO; and (4) constructed, delivered, and analyzed results of member survey on perception of IB within ASCO.
    RESULTS: Historically uncommon, PubMed articles on IB in peer review subsequently increased exponentially in the past 2 decades. Qualitative interviews of ASCO key stakeholders reveal that system changes and IB training were priorities. The committee member survey reported that their peer review decisions could be affected by IB and that mitigating IB should be a priority. Most reported having never been trained on IB. Available data from ASCO database support stakeholder findings, suggesting that there exists a disproportionate representation of males and better-known institutions among both reviewer positions and awardees. Ethnicity/race data were insufficiently reported. Limited data on interventions/strategies to mitigate IB in the peer-reviewed literature suggest that there are feasible processes for grants, program committees, and journals.
    CONCLUSION: Limited data reveal that the peer review process at ASCO is not exempt from IB and suggest association with sex and institutional affiliation. Working Group on Implicit Bias recommends three actions to mitigate IB within peer review: (1) create awareness and a culture of inclusivity, (2) create systems to reduce IB, and (3) collect data for ongoing analysis.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.22.00275
  6. Nature. 2022 Oct 14.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Databases; Ethics; Funding
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03294-3
  7. Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 ;7 992942
      Southeast Asia is an emerging force of open access scholarly output. For example, Indonesia is in a tight competition with United Kingdom as the largest publisher of open access journals and the second largest producer of open access articles in the world (according to DOAJ and the COKI OA Dashboard, respectively). However, this support for open practices is not yet reflected in institutional research policies in Southeast Asian countries, which still rely on criteria influenced by world university rankings that focus on publication outputs and do not incorporate elements related to research culture, integrity, or open science. Preprints have gained increasing attention across disciplines in the last few years, but they are still not included in institutional policies in SouthEast Asia. This paper discusses the potential for preprints to be a driving force for open science and for quality and integrity in scholarly outputs from Southeast Asia. There is a fledgling preprinting culture in the region, catalyzed by the RINarxiv preprint server in Indonesia and the Malaysia Open Science Platform. We argue that preprints have many advantages: opportunities for open access and for researchers to maintain copyright to their work, wide dissemination, encouraging feedback and critical thinking, and community governance. With these advantages, preprints can become a fast and open communication hub between researchers and all stakeholders in the research process. We recommend regulatory and practical steps to incorporate preprints into science policy and researchers' practices as an effort to promote research integrity, open data and reproducibility.
    Keywords:  Southeast Asia; diversity; open access; open science; preprints; reproducibility; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.992942
  8. Nature. 2022 Oct;610(7931): 233
      
    Keywords:  Developing world; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03201-w
  9. J Nucl Med. 2022 Sep 08. pii: jnumed.122.264679. [Epub ahead of print]
      Rationale: To investigate nuclear medicine scientists' experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to the Journal Citation Reports) in 2021, received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: A total of 254(12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to have committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported to have witnessed or to suspect scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 years. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) of respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range: 2-10) on a 1-10 point scale to their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a β coefficient of 0.983 (95% confidence interval: 0.512 to 1.454, P<0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be non-negligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.
    Keywords:  Fraud; Medical Imaging; Nuclear Medicine; Other; Research; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264679
  10. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2022 Jul;83(4): 752-758
      Authorship is important for research integrity and publication ethics, acting as the basis for credit and academic achievement. Moreover, publication achievements have a significant impact on research grants and academic careers. Inappropriate authorship has been reported for several reasons, including complex interests and competitive environments. One form of this is representative authorship misuse, which includes honorary and ghost authorships. Kin co-authorship, such as parent-children authorship, is another form of inappropriate authorship that has recently emerged as a social problem in Korea. To address these issues, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established criteria for authorship. Similarly, many journals use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) systems to prevent authorship misuse and systematically evaluate author credit and responsibility. Herein, this article reviews authorship and inappropriate authorship, as well as introduces methods to avoid authorship misuse.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2022.0040
  11. Scientometrics. 2022 Oct 01. 1-17
      Academic writing is developing to be more positive. This linguistic positivity bias is confirmed in academic writing across disciplines and genres. The current research adopted sentiment analysis and examined the diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the full texts of 2,556 research articles published in Science in 25 years. The results showed that academic writing in research articles in the journal Science has become significantly more positive in the past 25 years. The findings of this study confirm linguistic positivity bias in academic writing based on empirical data from Science. Reasons for the increasingly positive language use in science articles might include the popularization of science, the growing number of researchers, and the difficulty of publishing in high-impact journals. Finally, this study discussed the implications of our findings for researchers, editors, and peer reviewers.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; Linguistic positivity bias; Research articles; Science; Sentiment analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04515-2
  12. Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Oct 14.
      
    Keywords:  Acceptance time; General internal medicine; Journal; Publication speed; Publication time
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-03119-1
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct 08. pii: S0895-4356(22)00241-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      OBJECTIVES: Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting LE synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements.STUDY DESIGN: A survey of methodological articles describing or analysing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis.
    RESULTS: Twelve methodological articles were identified and analysed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis.
    CONCLUSION: This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift towards more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.
    Keywords:  living evidence; living systematic review; methods; survey; update
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.020
  14. Eur J Radiol. 2022 Oct 08. pii: S0720-048X(22)00403-X. [Epub ahead of print]156 110553
      PURPOSE: To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues' scientific work.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity.
    RESULTS: A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0-10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud.
    CONCLUSION: Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives.
    Keywords:  Fraud; Medical imaging; Radiology; Research; Scientific misconduct; Trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110553
  15. Nature. 2022 10;610(7931): 257
      
    Keywords:  Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03232-3
  16. Nature. 2022 10;610(7931): 257
      
    Keywords:  Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03233-2
  17. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 Oct 09. 12034754221130239
      
    Keywords:  bioRxiv; dermatology; medRxiv; peer-review; preprint; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754221130239
  18. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2022 Oct 12.
      INTRODUCTION: Research impact and influence are commonly measured quantitatively by citation count received by research articles. Many institutes also use citation count as one of the factors in faculty performance appraisal and candidate selection of academic positions. Various strategies were recommended to amplify and accelerate research influence, particularly citation counts, by bringing research articles to a wider reach for potential readers. However, no prior empirical study was conducted to examine and valid effects of those strategies on nursing studies. This study examines and verifies the direct effects and mediation effects of some strategies, namely, the use of Twitter, international collaboration, the use of ResearchGate, and open access publishing, for amplifying the citation of research and review articles in nursing studies.DESIGN: Cross-sectional study design.
    METHODS: Articles published in top nursing journals in 2016 were identified in PUBMED and the citation metrics for individual articles until 2021 were extracted from Scopus. The primary outcome was the citation count of the article, while the tweet count on Twitter of the article was considered a mediator. The predictors included paper type, the total number of authors, the proportion of authors with a ResearchGate account in the article, funding support, open-accessed article, and the number of different countries stated in the authors' affiliation. A mediation analysis was conducted to examine the predictors' direct and indirect effects (i.e., via tweet count) on the citation count of the article.
    RESULTS: A total of 2210 articles were included in this study, of which 223 (10.1%) were review articles. The median (IQR) number of Scopus citations, tweets, countries, and percentage of authors with ResearchGate accounts were 12 (6-21), 2 (0-6), 1 (1-1), and 75% (50%-100%) respectively. In the mediation analysis, tweet count, article type, number of countries, percentage of authors with a ResearchGate account, and journal impact factors in 2014 were positively associated with the Scopus citation count. The effects of article type, open access, and journals' impact factors in 2014 on Scopus citation count were mediated by the tweet count.
    CONCLUSION: This study provides empirical support for some strategies researchers may employ to amplify the citation count of their research articles. The methodology of our study can be extended to compare research influence between entities (e.g., across countries or institutes).
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The citation refers to the research work cited by peers and is one of the indicators for research impact. Higher citations implied the research work is read and used by others, therefore, understanding the associated factors with higher citations is critical.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; nursing research; research impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12827
  19. Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Nov;pii: S2214-109X(22)00368-0. [Epub ahead of print]10(11): e1684-e1687
      Scientists have expressed concern that the risk of flawed decision making is increased through the use of preprint data that might change after undergoing peer review. This Health Policy paper assesses how COVID-19 evidence presented in preprints changes after review. We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Uncertainty was reduced during peer review, with CIs reducing by 7% on average. These results support the use of preprints, a component of biomedical research literature, in decision making. These results can also help inform the use of preprints during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and future disease outbreaks.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00368-0
  20. Br Dent J. 2022 Oct 13.
      Introduction Equity, diversity and inclusivity in research is critical to ensure all of society contributes.Aim This study analysed the gender and location (workplace) of editorial teams across 124 dental journals.Methods All chief editors of the 91 dental journals listed on the journal citation report for 2021 were contacted to provide details of the numbers of chief editors, other editors and the editorial board members, plus a summary of their demographic information including gender, age (group) and location. If chief editors did not respond, publicly available information was collated for the analysis. The same publicly available information of 45 PubMed indexed journals not on the citation report and three emerging online journals was also retrieved.Results Of the 159 chief editors across the 124 journals, 131 (82%) were men and 30% were based in the USA. Of the 1,265 other editors, two-thirds were from the USA, UK, Brazil and Japan. Of the 3,044 editorial board members, half were from the same four countries.Conclusions 'You can't be what you can't see': women and people from many parts of the world cannot see themselves as chief editors, other editors or editorial board members of dental journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-5078-9
  21. Cad Saude Publica. 2022 ;pii: S0102-311X2022000905007. [Epub ahead of print]38(9): e00076922
      Scientific publishing is a socially valued practice, modulating academic trajectories. Scientific journals operate between two distinct social fields, the editorial and the scientific, having as axis the objective and intersubjective relationships of the scientific field. This article analyzes the performance of Social Science editors in the field of Public Health, as well as their conceptions about the process of evaluating scientific articles, their perspective and relationship with other agents of editorial practice, and their role in shaping a scientific habitus. The methodological option was the thematic analysis of 13 semi-structured interviews with editors-in-chief and associates of the Social Science area of prominent journals in Public Health. Editors are agents who operate with the contradictions and pressures derived from productivism in a relative autonomy of the editorial practice. They gradually create an editorial habitus coined by empirical practice, self-taught training, and voluntary dedication. They also establish a dialogue between authors and the peer-competitor community in the field. They delimit objects and themes of interest in the area from the legitimacy based on the "disinterested" action demanded by the scientific field. They will impose barriers to articles considered of low quality, defined especially by theoretical-methodological gaps and lack of originality. However, their didactic work of inculcation in a way considered appropriate in the management of theories and methodologies of Social Science is limited to the refusal of texts, which suggests the importance of greater articulation between editors, editors' forums, graduate programs, and other agents of training of researchers in the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT076922
  22. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022 ;9(1): 348
      Many fields of science are still dominated by men. COVID-19 has dramatically changed the nature of work, including for scientists, such as lack of access to key resources and transition to online teaching. Further, scientists face the pandemic-related stressors common to other professions (e.g., childcare, eldercare). As many of these activities fall more heavily on women, the pandemic may have exacerbated gender disparities in science. We analyzed self-identified gender of corresponding author for 119,592 manuscripts from 151 countries submitted January 2019 to July 2021 to the Institute of Physics (IOP) portfolio of 57 academic journals, with disciplines of astronomy and astrophysics, bioscience, environmental science, materials, mathematics, physics, and interdisciplinary research. We consider differences by country, journal, and pre-pandemic versus pandemic periods. Gender was self-identified by corresponding author for 82.9% of manuscripts (N = 99,114 for subset of submissions with gender). Of these manuscripts, authors were 82.1% male, 17.8% female, and 0.08% non-binary. Most authors were male for all countries (country-specific values: range 0.0-100.0%, median 86.1%) and every journal (journal-specific values range 63.7-91.5%, median 83.7%). The contribution of female authors was slightly higher in the pandemic (18.7%) compared to pre-pandemic (16.5%). However, prior to the pandemic, the percent of submissions from women had been increasing, and this value slowed during the pandemic. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find that manuscript submissions from women decreased during the pandemic, although the rate of increased submissions evident prior to the pandemic slowed. In both pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, authorship was overwhelmingly male for all journals, countries, and fields. Further research is needed on impacts of the pandemic on other measures of scientific productivity (e.g., accepted manuscripts, teaching), scientific position (e.g., junior vs. senior scholars), as well as the underlying gender imbalance that persisted before and during the pandemic.
    Keywords:  Education; Science, technology and society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01365-4
  23. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Oct;pii: e010421. [Epub ahead of print]7(10):
      
    Keywords:  Descriptive study; Health policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010421
  24. J Card Fail. 2022 Oct;pii: S1071-9164(22)00705-9. [Epub ahead of print]28(10): 1485-1486
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2022.09.001
  25. Psychol Sci. 2022 Oct 14. 9567976221083219
      Scientific-consensus communication is among the most promising interventions to minimize the gap between experts' and the public's belief in scientific facts. There is, however, discussion about its effectiveness in changing consensus perceptions and beliefs about contested science topics. This preregistered meta-analysis assessed the effects of communicating the existence of scientific consensus on perceived scientific consensus and belief in scientific facts. Combining 43 experiments about climate change, genetically modified food, and vaccination, we found that a single exposure to consensus messaging had a positive effect on perceived scientific consensus (g = 0.55) and on belief in scientific facts (g = 0.12). Consensus communication yielded very similar effects for climate change and genetically modified food, whereas the low number of experiments about vaccination prevented conclusions regarding this topic. Although these effects are small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual beliefs about contested science topics.
    Keywords:  belief; climate change; genetically modified food; meta-analysis; open data; preregistered; science communication; scientific consensus; scientific facts; vaccination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221083219
  26. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2022 May-Jun;13(3):13(3): 321-325
      Dermatology is a specialty that relies a lot on the visual aspect of clinical diagnosis. Taking photographs of skin lesions is a routine part of clinical practice. They are used to document skin changes during the course of treatment. It is useful for publishing articles in academic journals and textbooks, and serves as a teaching aid. Images are an important form of patient data. Like all patient data, the need for ensuring confidentiality and security is of paramount importance. Keeping all this in mind, it is important to know how to store, backup and archive your images in a safe and efficient manner.
    Keywords:   Archiving; backup; clinical photography; images; storage
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.idoj_642_21
  27. Int J Digit Libr. 2022 Oct 05. 1-35
      Scientific writing builds upon already published papers. Manual identification of publications to read, cite or consider as related papers relies on a researcher's ability to identify fitting keywords or initial papers from which a literature search can be started. The rapidly increasing amount of papers has called for automatic measures to find the desired relevant publications, so-called paper recommendation systems. As the number of publications increases so does the amount of paper recommendation systems. Former literature reviews focused on discussing the general landscape of approaches throughout the years and highlight the main directions. We refrain from this perspective, instead we only consider a comparatively small time frame but analyse it fully. In this literature review we discuss used methods, datasets, evaluations and open challenges encountered in all works first released between January 2019 and October 2021. The goal of this survey is to provide a comprehensive and complete overview of current paper recommendation systems.
    Keywords:  Literature review; Paper recommendation system; Publication suggestion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-022-00339-w