bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019–01–06
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.
  2. Data Falsification and Question on Academic Integrity.
  3. Can self-regulation deliver an ethical commercial literature? A critical reading of the "Good Publication Practice" (GPP3) guidelines for industry-financed medical journal articles.
  4. Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.
  5. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
  6. RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record.
  7. Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Palliative and Supportive Care.
  8. Commentary: a broader perspective on the RePAIR consensus guidelines (Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record).
  9. The quest for transparent science: Open peer review.
  10. Examining author gender data.
  11. Let's talk about Reviewer Rewards.
  12. Almost half of references in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies are grey literature.
  13. Has Cochrane lost its way?
  14. From "hot type" to Evise: A 50-year career in journal editing.
  15. Editorial: 50 years of clinically relevant, scientifically based publishing.
  16. New Year PlanS.
  17. Nature at 150.
  18. Response to editorial commentary: predatory publishing or a lack of peer-review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology.
  19. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology: Editorial Board 2019.
  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jan 02.
    What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.
    Christian Hopp, Gary A Hoover.
      This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.
    Keywords:  Data fabrication; Data misrepresentation; Ethics; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0079-4
  2. Account Res. 2018 Dec 29.
    Data Falsification and Question on Academic Integrity.
    Mohammad Nurunnabi, Monirul Alam Hossain.
      In this commentary, we argue that plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing and data falsification in recent times has received a great attention globally. Due to lack of literature, the objective of this study is to evaluate data falsification and academic integrity. Accordingly, the study presents the academic misconduct (Falsification/Fabrication of data and Concerns/Issues About Data) case of Professor James E. Hunton, a former top ranked Accounting Professor from Bentley University. The study shows how research fraud/data falsification activity in the academic world lacks honesty and morality. The study offers some recommendations for the detection of plagiarism and academic misconduct. In the age of the Internet and digital era, Crossref, iThenticate, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) would help to detect plagiarism. However, the question remains on detecting data falsification in Academic World?
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Plagiarism; ethics; higher education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1564664
  3. Account Res. 2019 Jan 04.
    Can self-regulation deliver an ethical commercial literature? A critical reading of the "Good Publication Practice" (GPP3) guidelines for industry-financed medical journal articles.
    Alastair Matheson.
      Much medical journal literature is developed by the pharmaceutical and device industries, sometimes with assistance from marketing agencies, writers and academics. This literature is vulnerable to commercial bias. The publications trade issues self-regulatory ethical guidelines for its production, called "Good Publication Practice" (GPP). I evaluated the most recent iteration, GPP3. The most progressive recommendations in GPP3 call for complete publication of all clinical trials, and full data sharing. GPP3 makes numerous further recommendations more directly concerning the publications trade. Many of these repeat existing editorial requirements, chiefly those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but readers are not adequately advised of this. Despite its emphasis on ethical and transparent reporting, the detail of GPP3 enables continued use of academic medical literature for drug marketing, on the basis of commercial steerage of content, coupled with the attribution of published articles to collaborating academic authors. As such, GPP3 provides a de facto manual for how marketing through academic journal content can be conducted in compliance with contemporary editorial standards. Consequently, the self-regulatory GPP3 guidelines are not a sound basis for the production of unbiased industry-financed medical journal literature. I suggest improvements for future iterations of these influential guidelines.
    Keywords:  GPP3; Good Publication Practice; ICMJE; bias; commercialization of research; ghost writing; guidelines; marketing; pharmaceutical industry; publication ethics; self-regulatory guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1564663
  4. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jan;107(1): 16-29
    Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.
    Peace Ossom Williamson, Christian I J Minter.
       Objective: PubMed's provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed's composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed's reliability, while exploring PubMed's role in the current scholarly communications landscape.
    Methods: The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.
    Results: Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.
    Conclusion: The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.433
  5. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jan;107(1): 57-61
    Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
    Amanda Ross-White, Christina M Godfrey, Kimberley A Sears, Rosemary Wilson.
       Objectives: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.
    Methods: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews.
    Results: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals.
    Discussion: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.491
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 ;3 15
    RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record.
    Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean: Prevention and Management of Misconduct Related Retractions”
      The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on a crumbling foundation. These guidelines serve to outline the respective responsibilities of researchers, institutions, agencies, and publishers or editors in maintaining the integrity of the research record. Delineating these complementary roles and proposing solutions for common barriers provide a foundation for best practices.
    Keywords:  Agencies; Communication; Editors; Institutions; International; Publishers; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Researchers; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1
  7. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Dec 27. pii: S0885-3924(18)31090-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Palliative and Supportive Care.
    Andrea Cortegiani, Eugenio Garofalo, Andrea Bruni, Filippo Sanfilippo, Federico Longhini.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.11.021
  8. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 ;3 14
    Commentary: a broader perspective on the RePAIR consensus guidelines (Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record).
    Zoë H Hammatt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0056-0
  9. J Neurosci Res. 2018 Dec 31.
    The quest for transparent science: Open peer review.
    Eric M Prager.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24369
  10. Science. 2019 Jan 04. 363(6422): 7
    Examining author gender data.
    Jeremy Berg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw4633
  11. J Clin Invest. 2019 Jan 02. pii: 126935. [Epub ahead of print]
    Let's talk about Reviewer Rewards.
    Sarah Jackson.
      The JCI and JCI Insight announce the Reviewer Rewards program to recognize the outstanding contribution of peer reviewers to our evaluation process. As a token of our appreciation, eligible reviewers who have completed 3 or more reviews may designate one of their own research manuscripts for guaranteed external review when they submit to the corresponding journal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI126935
  12. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jan;107(1): 43-48
    Almost half of references in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies are grey literature.
    Kelly Farrah, Monika Mierzwinski-Urban.
       Objective: The research investigated how frequently grey literature is used in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies, which sources are most cited, and how grey literature searching is reported.
    Methods: A retrospective review of references cited in horizon scanning reports on nondrug health technologies-including medical devices, laboratory tests, and procedures-was conducted. A quasi-random sample of up to three reports per agency was selected from a compilation of reports published in 2014 by international horizon scanning services and health organizations.
    Results: Twenty-two reports from 8 agencies were included in the analysis. On average, 47% (288/617) of references listed in the bibliographies of the horizon scanning reports were grey literature. The most frequently cited type of grey literature was information from manufacturers (30% of all grey literature references), regulatory agencies (10%), clinical trial registries (9%), and other horizon scans or evidence synthesis reports (9%). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ClincalTrials.gov were the most frequently cited specific sources, constituting 7% and 8% of grey literature references, respectively. Over two-thirds (15/22) of the analyzed reports provided some details on search methodology; all 15 of these reported searching some grey literature.
    Conclusions: In this sample, grey literature represented almost half of the references cited in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies. Of these grey literature references, almost half came from three sources: the manufacturers, ClincalTrials.gov, and the FDA. There was wide variation in the other sources cited. Literature search methodology was often insufficiently reported for analysis.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.539
  13. BMJ. 2019 Jan 03. 364 k5302
    Has Cochrane lost its way?
    Melanie Newman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5302
  14. Psychiatry Res. 2018 Dec 21. pii: S0165-1781(18)32354-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    From "hot type" to Evise: A 50-year career in journal editing.
    Sherry Buchsbaum.
      I began work as an editor on NIMH's quarterly publication Schizophrenia Bulletin. Later I became the Managing Editor of Elsevier's Psychiatry Research. Over 50 years, I saw changes in scientific review and journal production that were at first quite slow but later rapidly accelerating. I started in an era before PCs, where authors submitted typewritten (i.e., on typewriters) paper manuscripts and editors relied on pencils for typographic instructions and copy-editing changes. Manuscript review was entirely by mail, three copies of each manuscript being sent to reviewers worldwide, and reviews likewise being returned by mail. Efficiency was enhanced with the appearance of fax machines, overnight courier services and, best of all, email communication. The ubiquity of PCs led to the submission of manuscripts on diskette and later as email attachments. Manuscript submission, review, copy editing, and transmission to the publisher were all done by email. In a parallel development, the review process and journal visibility were revolutionized by the advent of the "electronic" library, aiding the selection of appropriate reviewers and leading to a worldwide explosion in manuscript submissions. Web-based manuscript-reviewing systems like Evise are state-of-the-art, but will doubtless be replaced by other advances to delight and confound the editor.
    Keywords:  Electronic library; Journal editing; Psychiatry Research; Schizophrenia Bulletin; Web-based review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.104
  15. Quintessence Int. 2019 ;50(1): 5
    Editorial: 50 years of clinically relevant, scientifically based publishing.
    Eli Eliav.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a41689
  16. Development. 2019 Jan 04. pii: dev174664. [Epub ahead of print]146(1):
    New Year PlanS.
    James Briscoe, Katherine Brown.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.174664
  17. Nature. 2019 01;565(7737): 5
    Nature at 150.
      
    Keywords:  History; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07844-6
  18. J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Nov 09. pii: S1477-5131(18)30647-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Response to editorial commentary: predatory publishing or a lack of peer-review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology.
    F O'Kelly, M A Koyle.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.10.028
  19. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Jan 02.
    Journal of Nuclear Cardiology: Editorial Board 2019.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-01569-9
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.