bims-skolko 2019-03-31 papers

Issue of 2019–03–31
fiveteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23. 9(3): e026516

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey.

Kelly D Cobey, Agnes Grudniewicz, Manoj M Lalu, Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, David Moher.

OBJECTIVES: To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.
DESIGN: An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.
PARTICIPANTS: Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.
RESULTS: Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.
CONCLUSIONS: This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

Keywords: corresponding authors; motivations to publish; predatory journals; survey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516

Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7749): 435

Plagiarism detectors are a crutch, and a problem.

Debora Weber-Wulff.

Keywords: Communication; Ethics; Publishing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00893-5

PLoS One. 2019 ;14(3): e0214423

How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing.

Emanuel Kulczycki, Ewa A Rozkosz, Tim C E Engels, Raf Guns, Marek Hołowiecki, Janne Pölönen.

This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers' names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study's objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers' claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers' names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214423

BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Mar 28. 20(1): 21

Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms.

Shona Kalkman, Menno Mostert, Christoph Gerlinger, Johannes J M van Delden, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research.
RESULTS: We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust.

Keywords: Big data; Data sharing; Ethical governance; Research ethics; Secondary use

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0359-9

J Clin Invest. 2019 Mar 25. pii: 128380. [Epub ahead of print]130

Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data.

Corinne L Williams, Arturo Casadevall, Sarah Jackson.

Recent reports suggest that there has been an increase in the number of retractions and corrections of published articles due to post-publication detection of problematic data. Moreover, fraudulent data and sloppy science have long-term effects on the scientific literature and subsequent projects based on false and unreproducible claims. At the JCI, we have introduced several data screening checks for manuscripts prior to acceptance in an attempt to reduce the number of post-publication corrections and retractions, with the ultimate goal of increasing confidence in the papers we publish.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI128380

JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Apr;pii: S2213-1779(19)30099-X. [Epub ahead of print]7(4): 363

Heart Failure Fake News: How Do We Distinguish the Truth?

Christopher M O'Connor.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2019.02.004

BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019 Mar 27. pii: bmjebm-2019-111185. [Epub ahead of print]

Institute for Scientific Freedom.

Peter C Gøtzsche.

Keywords: public health

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111185

Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 28. 17(1): 32

Supporting implementation of Cochrane methods in complex communication reviews: resources developed and lessons learned for editorial practice and policy.

Rebecca Ryan, Sophie Hill.

Every healthcare encounter involves some form of communication and there is growing recognition that effective health communication is central to the delivery of safe, high-quality healthcare. Conversely, poor communication has a range of adverse consequences for those receiving healthcare and the systems delivering care, including elevated patient safety risks. Increasing understanding and documentation of the key role that good communication plays in healthcare design and delivery has meant there is growing demand from policy-makers and other decision-makers for evidence on the effects of health communication interventions - that is, how best to communicate. While systematic reviews of such interventions are fundamental to building this evidence base, such interventions and reviews are often highly complex and pose considerable challenges for authors and editors. In this paper, we describe our experience as a Cochrane editorial group identifying common issues in reviews of communication interventions and developing resources to support authors to better meet these challenges. Our analysis found that issues typically fell into one or more of the following three stages of the review process: understanding and applying systematic review methods (e.g. selecting outcomes for analysis); reporting the review's methods (e.g. describing key decisions made in conducting the review); and interpreting the findings (e.g. incorporating quality of the evidence into findings of the review). We also found that common issues reflected both practical difficulties (such as the typically large size of reviews and disparate measures for outcomes) and conceptual challenges (for instance, the difficulties of identifying comparisons). While extensive advice for Cochrane systematic reviewers exists, this standardised advice does not cover all of the issues emerging for complex communication reviews. In response, we therefore developed a collection of resources, both general and targeted to specific methodological issues. Here, we describe the types of resources developed and the aims of these, the rationale for why we needed to fill specific gaps in existing advice, and reflect on the lessons for future editorial practice, policies and research in relation to the implementation of Cochrane review methods in the area of health communication.

Keywords: Evidence-based practice; Health communication; Health services research; Patient participation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0435-0

Gac Sanit. 2019 Mar 26. pii: S0213-9111(19)30074-3. [Epub ahead of print]

Scientific misconduct and Iranian scientists.

Sara Dakhesh, Ali Hamidi.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.02.003

Cell Syst. 2019 Mar 27. pii: S2405-4712(19)30072-9. [Epub ahead of print]8(3): 169

Nucleating Community around Scientific Values.

Quincey Justman.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.03.002