bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019–02–03
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Plan S: Unrealistic capped fee structure.
  2. Plan S: A threat to quality of science?
  3. Unravelling the mysteries of predatory conferences.
  4. How editors edit.
  5. No Free Lunch - What Price Plan S for Scientific Publishing?
  6. Promoting Authorship Integrity in Scientific Publication.
  7. Replicability and replication in the humanities.
  8. How scientists can take the lead in establishing ethical practices for social media research.
  9. Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade.
  10. Positive and negative influences on female first authorship emergency medicine research.
  11. #OpenAccess: Free online, open-access crowdsource-reviewed publishing is the future; traditional peer-reviewed journals are on the way out.
  12. Commentary to 'Predatory publishing or a lack of peer-review transparency? - a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access papers in paediatric urology'.
  13. Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally.
  14. Author gender and editors' decisions at Clinical Microbiology and Infection.
  15. Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals.
  16. Creating a Community of Writers: Participant Perception of the Impact of a Writing Retreat on Scholarly Productivity.
  1. Science. 2019 Feb 01. 363(6426): 461
    Plan S: Unrealistic capped fee structure.
    Alicia J Kowaltowski, Marcus F Oliveira.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw5815
  2. Science. 2019 Feb 01. 363(6426): 462
    Plan S: A threat to quality of science?
    Michael Spedding, James Barrett, Edward T Morgan, Mary Vore, Dominic Geraghty, Carl Kirkpatrick, Ingolf Cascorbi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1424
  3. Br Dent J. 2019 Feb 01.
    Unravelling the mysteries of predatory conferences.
    P A Heasman.
      The science and practice of dentistry are underpinned by research and clinical developments that have been evaluated rigorously before being presented to the profession in peer-reviewed journals or at national and international meetings. The online platform that supports open access journals has been corrupted by the emergence of so-called 'predatory journals', which accept papers on payment of a significant publication fee. This practice has now extended to dental conferences and this article describes the author's personal views of predatory conferences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.101
  4. Nat Methods. 2019 Feb;16(2): 135
    How editors edit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0324-z
  5. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 30.
    No Free Lunch - What Price Plan S for Scientific Publishing?
    Charlotte J Haug.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1900864
  6. Acad Med. 2019 Feb;94(2): 151
    Promoting Authorship Integrity in Scientific Publication.
    Ahmed Abu-Zaid, Yassar Alamri.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002523
  7. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 2
    Replicability and replication in the humanities.
    Rik Peels.
      A large number of scientists and several news platforms have, over the last few years, been speaking of a replication crisis in various academic disciplines, especially the biomedical and social sciences. This paper answers the novel question of whether we should also pursue replication in the humanities. First, I create more conceptual clarity by defining, in addition to the term "humanities," various key terms in the debate on replication, such as "reproduction" and "replicability." In doing so, I pay attention to what is supposed to be the object of replication: certain studies, particular inferences, of specific results. After that, I spell out three reasons for thinking that replication in the humanities is not possible and argue that they are unconvincing. Subsequently, I give a more detailed case for thinking that replication in the humanities is possible. Finally, I explain why such replication in the humanities is not only possible, but also desirable.
    Keywords:  Humanities; Normativity; Replicability; Replication; Replication crisis; Uniqueness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0060-4
  8. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Jan 29.
    How scientists can take the lead in establishing ethical practices for social media research.
    Sherry Pagoto, Camille Nebeker.
      Social media use has become ubiquitous in the United States, providing unprecedented opportunities for research. However, the rapidly evolving research landscape has far outpaced federal regulations for the protection of human subjects. Recent highly publicized scandals have raised legitimate concerns in the media about how social media data are being used. These circumstances combined with the absence of ethical standards puts even the best intentioned scientists at risk of possible research misconduct. The scientific community may need to lead the charge in insuring the ethical use of social media data in scientific research. We propose 6 steps the scientific community can take to lead this charge. We underscore the important role of funding agencies and universities to create the necessary ethics infrastructure to allow social media research to flourish in a way that is pro-technology, pro-science, and most importantly, pro-humanity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy174
  9. Trop Parasitol. 2018 Jul-Dec;8(2):8(2): 62-69
    Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade.
    Hunny Sharma, Swati Verma.
      Achieving a place in the authorship of published scientific research is a matter of pride and fame associated with creativity, recognition, better evaluation, and financial gains. This had made assigning of authorship in a scientific publication, a complex and challenging issue. Gaining a position in authorship in scientific publications not only prompts or encourages authors to carry out more research but also recourse many of them to the unethical practice of different kinds of authorship abuses. These authorship abuses are done so cleverly and skillfully that neither the journal editors nor the readers of the journals realize that bias had crept in authorship of the publication. This nonstandard act of biased authorship has a tremendous potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications. The present review aims in focusing on issues pertaining to authorship and its misuse in biomedical research. Thus, it can be concluded from this review that new policies, guidelines, and laws should be made by the government agencies in association with journal editors, institution, and government agencies to curb this malpractice by protecting whistleblowers and providing adequate punishment for those who are involved.
    Keywords:  Authorship; editorial policies; publishing; research; scientific misconduct; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/tp.TP_27_18
  10. Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 31.
    Positive and negative influences on female first authorship emergency medicine research.
    Jennica P Siddle, Sydney N Ryckman, Cherri D Hobgood, Jeffrey A Kline.
      In academic emergency medicine, female gender has been associated with fewer scholarly opportunities, fewer awards, and lower salaries.[1] First authorship of original research helps to determine rank and salary in academic medicine. Current data suggests a general under-representation of female first authors in medical literature from multiple specialties. Women are less likely to be listed as first author in the case of co-first authorship in high-impact medical journals.[2] Men outnumber women at all tiers of peer review, ranging from reviewers to editors.[3] With this background in mind, we sought to compare responses of male and female first authors regarding their perceptions of the factors that helped or hindered their first author status in Emergency Medicine. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13705
  11. CJEM. 2019 Jan;21(1): 11-14
    #OpenAccess: Free online, open-access crowdsource-reviewed publishing is the future; traditional peer-reviewed journals are on the way out.
    John R Adler, Teresa M Chan, J Bruce Blain, Brent Thoma, Paul Atkinson.
      
    Keywords:  Open access; peer review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2018.481
  12. J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Jan 03. pii: S1477-5131(18)30712-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Commentary to 'Predatory publishing or a lack of peer-review transparency? - a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access papers in paediatric urology'.
    B J Schlomer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.11.020
  13. Elife. 2019 Jan 29. pii: e36399. [Epub ahead of print]8
    Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally.
    Nichole A Broderick, Arturo Casadevall.
      We analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.
    Keywords:  co-authorship; gender bias; gender equity; human biology; infectious disease; medicine; microbiology; none; publication; scientific credit
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36399
  14. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jan 28. pii: S1198-743X(19)30034-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Author gender and editors' decisions at Clinical Microbiology and Infection.
    Angela Huttner, Julia Friedman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.01.012
  15. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2019 Feb 01. 119(2): e1-e8
    Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals.
    Brian Merritt, Thomas Simunich, John Ashurst.
       Context: With the transition to a single accreditation system for graduate medical education, the scholarly activity among core faculty in osteopathic and allopathic residency programs has come under scrutiny. Currently, major differences in scholarly activity requirements exist between core faculty in obstetrics and gynecology residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and those accredited by the American Osteopathic Association.
    Objective: To determine whether there is a disparity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians among authors with original research published in 4 high-impact obstetrics and gynecology journals during 4 select years.
    Methods: The authors reviewed Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol), Fertility and Sterility (Fertil Steril), and Menopause for the degree designation of the first and senior (last) author of each original manuscript for the years of 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and linear regression.
    Results: In total, 3311 articles and 5909 authors were reviewed. Of these authors, 0.80% (47) had a DO degree. Of 1692 authors with dual advanced degrees, only 0.53% (9) had a DO degree. On subgroup analysis of each journal, 0.87% (13 of 1494) of identified authors in Obstet Gynecol, 1.03% (21 of 2038) in Am J Obstet Gynecol, 0.44% (9 of 2030) in Fertil Steril, and 2.20% (4 of 347) in Menopause were osteopathic physicians. During the years studied, no statistically significant trend could be established for first or senior author publication by osteopathic physicians over time, for all 4 journals or for any individual journal.
    Conclusion: Very few osteopathic physicians have served as either the first or the senior author in articles published in Obstet Gynecol, Am J Obstet Gynecol, Fertil Steril, or Menopause during the years studied, and no trend was seen for increased publication by osteopathic physicians in these journals over time.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2019.020
  16. J Prof Nurs. 2019 Jan - Feb;35(1):pii: S8755-7223(18)30101-7. [Epub ahead of print]35(1): 65-69
    Creating a Community of Writers: Participant Perception of the Impact of a Writing Retreat on Scholarly Productivity.
    Joanne Noone, Heather M Young.
      An important component of the academic faculty role is dissemination of knowledge through manuscript publication. Ways to facilitate this scholarship are important to academic career progression. One approach is a writing retreat, which is a structured time to write and receive peer review of writing occurring over multiple, sequential days. This paper reports on an annual multi-day writing retreat originally consisting of five days and four nights. This was a mixed method descriptive evaluation. Fifty-three of the 56 participants from the seven writing retreats from 2010 to 2016 were contacted via email to complete an on-line quantitative and qualitative survey. Thirty-one responded for a response rate of 59%. Eleven participants from the 2017 writing retreat participated in a focus group discussion. Qualitative comments were analyzed using thematic analysis procedures. The majority of participants agreed that the writing retreat enhanced their overall scholarly activity and reported their knowledge and motivation to write increased as a result of participation. Participants valued the dedicated time for writing, peer review of writing, and structured time for discussions about writing and publishing. This was especially true for participants who attended two or more times. A writing retreat has value in supporting faculty to complete dissemination of research and to accomplish academic promotions.
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publication; Scholarship; Writing retreat
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2018.07.006
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.