bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019–09–15
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Open-access megajournals lose momentum.
  2. Writing for publication- implications of text recycling and cut and paste writing.
  3. Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations.
  4. Detecting errors that result in retractions.
  5. The Biomedical Alliance Spring Meeting on Plan S.
  6. How to banish manels and manferences from scientific meetings.
  7. Set citation data free.
  8. Conflicts of interest in academic publishing: when in doubt, declare!
  9. Academic tweeting in #ObGyn. Where do we stand?
  10. Debunking science denialism.
  11. Animal registries aim to reduce bias.
  12. Open Access: Will the Paywalls Come Tumbling Down?
  13. Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes.
  14. Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: A three-in-one case study.
  15. Scholarly publishing and research dissemination in South Asia: some exemplary initiatives and the way forward.
  16. So, you want to publish a paper . . .
  17. Don't Be a Luddite: Urologists Benefit from Social Media.
  18. A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.
  19. The Future of Publishing.
  20. What's next for Registered Reports?
  1. Science. 2019 Sep 13. 365(6458): 1067
    Open-access megajournals lose momentum.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.365.6458.1067
  2. J Nurs Manag. 2019 Sep 13.
    Writing for publication- implications of text recycling and cut and paste writing.
    Fiona Timmins.
      Increased use and availability of electronic text matching software (such as ithenticateTM ) to screen submissions to peer reviewed journals, means that Editors are increasingly being made aware of potential cases of plagiarism (Debnath 2016). While there are no true figures for academic plagiarism within submissions to peer-reviewed journals (Gasparyan et al 2017), anecdotally upwards of 25% of all submissions require some level of follow up and investigation. The text matching details provided by software such as ithenticateTM supports Editor decision-making, and assists Editors to explore all incidences of text matching fully.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12868
  3. Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7773): 174
    Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9
  4. Soc Stud Sci. 2019 Sep 12. 306312719872008
    Detecting errors that result in retractions.
    Line Edslev Andersen, K Brad Wray.
      We present a taxonomy of errors in the scientific literature and an account of how the errors are distributed over the categories. We have developed the taxonomy by studying substantial errors in the scientific literature as described in retraction notices published in the journal Science over the past 35 years. We then examine how the sorts of errors that lead to retracted papers can be prevented and detected, considering the perspective of collaborating scientists, journal editors and referees, and readers of the published articles.
    Keywords:  collaboration; errors in science; journal editors; misconduct; referees; retraction; scientific journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719872008
  5. Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 14. 40(27): 2177-2179
    The Biomedical Alliance Spring Meeting on Plan S.
    Thomas F Lüscher.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz492
  6. Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7773): 184-186
    How to banish manels and manferences from scientific meetings.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Conferences and meetings; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02658-6
  7. Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7773): 163-164
    Set citation data free.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02669-3
  8. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2019 Sep;49(3): 179-181
    Conflicts of interest in academic publishing: when in doubt, declare!
    Durga Prasanna Misra, Vinod Ravindran.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2019.301
  9. J Perinat Med. 2019 Sep 07. pii: /j/jpme.ahead-of-print/jpm-2019-0166/jpm-2019-0166.xml. [Epub ahead of print]
    Academic tweeting in #ObGyn. Where do we stand?
    Ghanshyam S Yadav, Nupur R Nagarkatti, Sagar O Rohondia, Hadi Erfani, Charles C Kilpatrick, Mark A Turrentine.
      Objective To describe the scenario of academic tweeting and utilization of Twitter by editorial board members of the leading journal in obstetrics and gynecology. Methods The Twitter presence of an editorial board members of obstetrics and gynecology journal with an impact factor greater than 4 was determined. Details of their Twitter activity, year of graduation from medical school and gender were analyzed. Median SparkScore™, an online influence measure, of journals was compared to the highest impact factor journals in medicine (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal and Journal of the American Medical Association). Results In the six highest impact factor journals in obstetrics and gynecology, 92 of 240 (38.3%) editorial board members had an active Twitter account. The Twitter presence of editorial members of Obstetrics and Gynecology was statistically less when compared to all other journals (P < 0.01). The median number of tweets in the last 24 h and 7 days were 0. Median SparkScore™ for the highest impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals (24) were lower compared to the highest impact journals in medicine (66) (P = 0.03). Conclusion Editorial board members of the six highest impact factor journals in obstetrics and gynecology are not capitalizing on the dynamic nature of Twitter and its instant convenient access from our smartphones to further academia, when compared to specialties in medicine. There is a need for increased adoption of Twitter among physician leaders in the specialty.
    Keywords:  Twitter; academia; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0166
  10. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Sep;3(9): 887
    Debunking science denialism.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0746-8
  11. Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7773): 297-298
    Animal registries aim to reduce bias.
    Monya Baker.
      
    Keywords:  Biological techniques; Ethics; Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02676-4
  12. Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 14. 40(27): 2180-2181
    Open Access: Will the Paywalls Come Tumbling Down?
    Judy Ozkan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz493
  13. Tob Induc Dis. 2018 ;16 28
    Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes.
    Cristina Martínez, Marcela Fu, Iñaki Galán, Mónica Pérez-Rios, Jose M Martínez-Sánchez, Maria J López, Xisca Sureda, Agustín Montes, Esteve Fernández.
       INTRODUCTION: The tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.
    METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.
    RESULTS: Of the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.
    CONCLUSIONS: One-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.
    Keywords:  bibliography as topic; conflicts of interest; electronic cigarettes
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/90668
  14. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(9): e0222213
    Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: A three-in-one case study.
    Kåre Letrud, Sigbjørn Hernes.
      Several uncorroborated, false, or misinterpreted conceptions have for years been widely distributed in academic publications, thus becoming scientific myths. How can such misconceptions persist and proliferate within the inimical environment of academic criticism? Examining 613 articles we demonstrate that the reception of three myth-exposing publications is skewed by an 'affirmative citation bias': The vast majority of articles citing the critical article will affirm the idea criticized. 468 affirmed the myth, 105 were neutral, while 40 took a negative stance. Once misconceptions proliferate wide and long enough, criticizing them not only becomes increasingly difficult, efforts may even contribute to the continued spreading of the myths.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222213
  15. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019 Sep;69(9): 1349-1354
    Scholarly publishing and research dissemination in South Asia: some exemplary initiatives and the way forward.
    Aamir Raoof Memon.
      High costs associated with traditional print-based publishing have made open access publishing a popular way to improve research dissemination. Now several options and initiatives are enabling developing-world authors to attain equitable access to the scientific literature. However, little is known about the role of journals and initiatives from low- and middle-income countries in Asia regarding open access and their publication standards. Therefore, this article presents some exemplar y initiatives to promote research dissemination in South Asia through open access and publishing standards of the regional journals. Such initiatives deserve wider recognition, especially when u nder taken by resource -limited cou ntr ies, an d international collaboration schemes hold the potential to build further on current achievements.
    Keywords:  Developing countries; Open-access; Scientific Publishing; South Asia.
  16. Perfusion. 2019 Oct;34(7): 536-537
    So, you want to publish a paper . . .
    John M Toomasian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659119871411
  17. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Sep 04. pii: S2405-4569(19)30273-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Don't Be a Luddite: Urologists Benefit from Social Media.
    Christopher E Bayne, Benjamin J Davies.
      Urologists, social media is good for you, your career, and your patients. Take advantage of the obvious benefits, mollify the traps when possible, and learn to live in the social media ecosystem.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.08.015
  18. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 17
    A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.
    Katrina A Bramstedt, Jun Xu.
       Background: Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines.
    Methods: Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored.
    Results: Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access.
    Conclusions: Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices.
    Keywords:  China; Informed consent; Organ donation; Publishing; Research ethics; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3
  19. J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Aug 30. pii: S0022-3468(19)30556-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Future of Publishing.
    George W Holcomb.
      This is the first Journal of Pediatric Surgery lecture at the Pacific Association of Pediatric Surgeons (PAPS) meeting.
    Keywords:  Evidence based medicine; Future of publishing; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.08.016
  20. Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7773): 187-189
    What's next for Registered Reports?
    Chris Chambers.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.