bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019–10–13
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Marginalised ideas are key to scientific progress.
  2. New deals could help scientific societies survive open access.
  3. Don't pull punches in peer review.
  4. Forcing PhD students to publish is bad for science.
  5. Publication bias towards Western populations harms humanity.
  6. Blocking the hype-hypocrisy-falsification-fakery pathway is needed to safeguard science.
  7. Publish, but don't perish to publish.
  8. Ensuring an Accurate Scientific Record-Retraction and Republication.
  9. Why publishing should be a pleasure, not a pressure.
  10. Do Preys Prey on Their Predators? Confusion Over Predatory "Hage-taka" Journals.
  11. Veracity in the Review Process.
  12. Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude.
  13. To protect credibility in science, banish "publish or perish".
  14. PhD merit needs to be defined by more than just publications.
  15. Publish but perish regardless in Japan.
  16. [To submit, or not to submit].
  17. Endorsement of Animal Research: Incorporation of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals: A survey of journals' instructions for authors and editors.
  18. A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.
  19. Editor's Message: Reading, Writing, Rigor, and Relevance.
  20. Peer review of intraoperative blood utilization in the cardiac anesthesia team - is the grass greener on the other side?
  21. An assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in otolaryngology.
  22. Scientific production in nursing contributing to innovation and transmission of knowledge.
  23. On reporting scientific and racial history.
  24. Current Issues in Scientific Publishing.
  25. PhDs in Brazil are perishing even when they publish.
  26. Look beyond publications in assessment of PhDs.
  27. How and why to review articles for the Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia.
  1. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1024
    Marginalised ideas are key to scientific progress.
    Marginalia Science
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0699-y
  2. Science. 2019 Sep 20. 365(6459): 1229
    New deals could help scientific societies survive open access.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.365.6459.1229
  3. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7777): 176
    Don't pull punches in peer review.
    Rohit Goswami.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03024-2
  4. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1036
    Forcing PhD students to publish is bad for science.
    Nick Yeung.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0685-4
  5. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1026-1027
    Publication bias towards Western populations harms humanity.
    Priti Mulimani.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0720-5
  6. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2019 Oct 07.
    Blocking the hype-hypocrisy-falsification-fakery pathway is needed to safeguard science.
    Henning Hopf, Stephen A Matlin, Goverdhan Mehta, Alain Krief.
      In chemistry and other sciences, hype has become commonplace, compounded by the hypocrisy of those who tolerate or encourage it while disapproving of the consequences. This reduces the credibility and trust upon which all science depends for support. Moreover, hype and hypocrisy are but first steps down a slippery slope towards falsification of results and dissemination of fake science. Systemic drivers in the contemporary structure of the science establishment encourage exaggeration and may lure the individual into further steps along the hype-hypocrisy-falsification-fakery continuum. Collective, concerted intervention is required to effectively discourage entry to this dangerous pathway and to restore and protect the probity and reputation of the science system. Chemists must play and active role in this effort.
    Keywords:  fake news; fake scince; hype; peer review; scientific literature
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201911889
  7. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1009
    Publish, but don't perish to publish.
    Friedrich M Götz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0669-4
  8. JAMA. 2019 10 08. 322(14): 1380
    Ensuring an Accurate Scientific Record-Retraction and Republication.
    Howard Bauchner, Robert M Golub.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.14503
  9. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1032
    Why publishing should be a pleasure, not a pressure.
    Anke Snoek.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0668-5
  10. Japan Med Assoc J. 2019 Sep 04. 2(2): 200-201
    Do Preys Prey on Their Predators? Confusion Over Predatory "Hage-taka" Journals.
    Kazuaki Takabe, Masayuki Nagahashi, Ali L Butash, Toshifumi Wakai.
      For the last several years, predatory journals have been a topic of discussion in top scientific journals, such as Nature. Predatory journals are problematic because they create public mistrust of scientific publication as a whole by the mass production of non-credible publications with the sole aim of profit. Recently, articles in a Japanese newspaper and online articles exposed domestic institutions for the number of publications in predatory journals, saying that they "abused predatory journals to increase the number of their publications and falsely inflate their academic achievements." We do not subscribe to this point of view because publications in predatory journals do not count as scholarly achievements, and we believe it is an information literacy problem. We feel strongly that it is both important and beneficial for the readers of The Japan Medical Association Journal to be aware of and understand this issue.
    Keywords:  open access; predatory journals; predatory publishers; scam
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2019-0011
  11. Headache. 2019 Oct;59(9): 1429-1433
    Veracity in the Review Process.
    Jacob Alexander de Ru, Thomas N Ward, Jason L Roberts.
      
    Keywords:  Headache; peer review; reviewer responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13671
  12. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1034
    Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude.
    Quan-Hoang Vuong.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0667-6
  13. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1017-1018
    To protect credibility in science, banish "publish or perish".
    Ava Kiai.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0741-0
  14. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1007
    PhD merit needs to be defined by more than just publications.
    Anne-Marie Coriat.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0727-y
  15. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1035
    Publish but perish regardless in Japan.
    Yuki Yamada.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0729-9
  16. Rinsho Ketsueki. 2019 ;60(9): 1396-1400
    [To submit, or not to submit].
    Motohiro Kato.
      Recently, an "open-access" publishing model has been widely adopted by many journals, in which authors typically pay for an article processing charge to make their journals freely accessible to readers. However, there are an increasing number of low-quality journals aiming to swindle article processing charges by exploiting this model. These corrupt journals invite scientists, via various methods, to submit their work, and accept promptly submitted papers without appropriate peer-review. This results in the publisher claiming expensive charges from authors, which eventually lowers their value as a scientist. There are lists of corrupt journals (black lists) and trustworthy journals (white lists), but neither reach perfection. The most useful criteria may be reputation, based on recommendations from reliable colleagues in the field. To avoid submitting to such corrupted journals, it is important to know and understand the methods and various trappings they employ.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Journal selection; Open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.11406/rinketsu.60.1396
  17. Lab Anim. 2019 Oct 09. 23677219879181
    Endorsement of Animal Research: Incorporation of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals: A survey of journals' instructions for authors and editors.
    Ting Zhang, Jingjing Yang, Xi Bai, Hongyan Liu, Fang Cheng, Zhanjun Ma, Bin Ma.
      The objective was to determine the rate at which Chinese journals include Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in their instructions for authors, and the awareness and recognition of editors. The survey was performed on Chinese journals. The most recent versions each journal's instructions for authors were downloaded, and the information related to the ARRIVE/GSPC was collected. A self-developed questionnaire was used to conduct the survey among the editors. Questionnaires were sent to 238 qualified journals and 198 of them returned them, achieving an 83.2% response rate. The results showed that none of the journals included the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors, and the awareness rate was only 13.1% (26/198). The participants who were unaware of the ARRIVE/GSPC were less likely than those who were aware of them to believe it was necessary to include the ARRIVE/GSPC in the instructions for authors (23.3% vs. 61.5%), and less likely to request authors in their manuscript preparation (28.5% vs. 88.5%), editors in the editing and processing (28.5% vs. 84.6%) and reviewers in peer review stage (28.5% vs. 92.3%) to follow the ARRIVE/GSPC. Currently no Chinese journals include the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors. The recognition rate of the ARRIVE/GSPC was low among the editors. So, we suggest that Chinese journals should promote inclusion of the ARRIVE/GSPC in journals' instructions for authors. It is also important to educate researchers and editors alike to increase their understanding of the ARRIVE/GSPC, so that the quality of reporting of animal study can be improved.
    Keywords:  ARRIVE Guidelines; GSPC; endorsement; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677219879181
  18. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 21
    A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.
    Blair R Hesp, Katsuhisa Arai, Magdalene Y S Chu, Stefanie Chuah, Jose Miguel B Curameng, Sandeep Kamat, Zhigang Ma, Andrew Sakko, Hazel Fernandez.
      Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.
    Keywords:  Asia-Pacific; Authorship; Conflict of interest; Disclosures; Ethics; Good Publication Practice; Manuscript development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0079-1
  19. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019 Oct/Dec;42(4):42(4): 207-208
    Editor's Message: Reading, Writing, Rigor, and Relevance.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000250
  20. Transfusion. 2019 Oct;59(10): 3289-3290
    Peer review of intraoperative blood utilization in the cardiac anesthesia team - is the grass greener on the other side?
    Kimberly N Hollander, Samhati Mondal, Kenichi A Tanaka.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.15460
  21. Laryngoscope. 2019 Oct 08.
    An assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in otolaryngology.
    Austin L Johnson, Trevor Torgerson, Mason Skinner, Tom Hamilton, Daniel Tritz, Matt Vassar.
       OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is consequently critical. We sought to assess the transparency and reproducibility of research studies in otolaryngology by evaluating a random sample of publications in otolaryngology journals between 2014 and 2018.
    STUDY DESIGN: Review of published literature for reproducible and transparent research practices.
    METHODS: We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Specific indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices were evaluated in a blinded, independent, and duplicate manner using a pilot-tested Google form.
    RESULTS: Our initial search returned 26,498 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 286 met inclusion criteria and 14 did not. Among the empirical studies, 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%-3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI: 2.7%-7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI: 1.7%-6.1%) were preregistered. None of the publications had a clear statement claiming to replicate, or to be a replication of, another study.
    CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate reproducibility practices exist in otolaryngology. Nearly all studies in our analysis lacked a data or material availability statement, did not link to an accessible protocol, and were not preregistered. Taking steps to improve reproducibility would likely improve patient care.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2019.
    Keywords:  Reproducibility; data sharing; open access; open science; otolaryngology; protocol; replication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28322
  22. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2019 ;pii: S1983-14472019000100200. [Epub ahead of print]40 e20190245
    Scientific production in nursing contributing to innovation and transmission of knowledge.
    Maria da Graça Oliveira Crossetti, Carolina Giordani da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2019.20190245
  23. Science. 2019 Sep 20. 365(6459): 1256-1257
    On reporting scientific and racial history.
    Rae Wynn-Grant.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay2459
  24. J Bacteriol. 2019 Oct 07. pii: JB.00627-19. [Epub ahead of print]
    Current Issues in Scientific Publishing.
    Thomas J Silhavy.
      In May of 2019, I lost a long-time friend, the Journal of Bacteriology (JB) lost a great 7 Editor, and the scientific community lost a magnificent scientist.….
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00627-19
  25. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1015
    PhDs in Brazil are perishing even when they publish.
    Elisa Mari Akagi Jordão.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0723-2
  26. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10): 1001
    Look beyond publications in assessment of PhDs.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0763-7
  27. J Bras Pneumol. 2019 ;pii: S1806-37132019000500101. [Epub ahead of print]45(5): e20190319
    How and why to review articles for the Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia.
    Bruno Guedes Baldi, Pedro Rodrigues Genta.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20190319
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.