bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019–12–29
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts.
  2. Editorial: Publishing "negative" results.
  3. Review process of the health scientific journals according to explanation of experts.
  4. Similarity Index Analysis of the Manuscript: A Viewpoint.
  5. Editorial: Preregistration and Open Science Practices in Hearing Science and Audiology: The Time Has Come.
  6. Is Medical Education Ready for Universal Open Access to Research?
  7. Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals.
  8. The Value of Scholarly Published Material: From Initial Dissemination to Updates and Citations in Real Time.
  9. Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High-Profile Nursing Journals.
  10. Spin in Scientific Publications: A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice.
  11. Open forensic science.
  12. Percentage of Studies Presented at a Conference Prior to Publication in Emergency Medicine Journals.
  13. Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
  14. A journal of histochemistry as a forum for non-histochemical scientific societies.
  15. Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications.
  16. The trend of misspelled HbA1c in scientific articles.
  1. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019 Dec 23.
    Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts.
    Andrea Cortegiani, Andrea Manca, Antonino Giarratano.
       PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Predatory publishing poses a serious educational end ethical threat to the credibility of science. The aim of this review is to discuss the main features of this deceptive open-access model, its potential consequences and relevance for the whole scientific community.
    RECENT FINDINGS: Recent reports showed that scholars and clinicians from all research fields, including anesthesiology, are facing an alarming invasion of predatory journals and, more recently, fake conferences. This review discusses key elements of these phenomena and proposes countermeasures to tackle the problem.
    SUMMARY: Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical. These range from publication of experimental data that are unreliable and poorly verified to inflated curricula and 'doped' academic careers. Because clinical practice is heavily based on research data, a solution is needed to ultimately ensure patients' safety.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000829
  2. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2019 Dec 23.
    Editorial: Publishing "negative" results.
    Phillip A Ortiz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21329
  3. J Educ Health Promot. 2019 ;8 187
    Review process of the health scientific journals according to explanation of experts.
    Hasan Ashrafi-Rizi, Rahele Samouei.
       INTRODUCTION: Reviewing articles are one of the most important methods for maintaining and improving the scientific quality of research outputs, especially in the field of health and medicine, and are often accompanied with various challenges.
    AIM: The current study was carried out to Health Promotion in the Review Process of the Health Scientific Journals according to Explanation of Experts.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study has a qualitative approach and was carried out using the content analysis method. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with experts with direct and related experiences with health scientific journals including editors in chief, internal managers, editorial boards, authors' council and members of national journal commission with at least 2 years of continuous related work experience in journals and review of at least 10 articles. Sampling was carried out using purposeful snowball sampling, and data were analyzed using content analysis method. Lincoln and Guba tests were used to determine the validity and reliability of the analysis based on the following four criteria - credibility, transferability, certainty, and verifiability.
    RESULTS: Experts' opinions were categorized based on criteria for reviewer selection with three dimensions of technical expertise, ethical behavior, and orientation and order; reviewer selection methods including emphasis on others and emphasis on self; and review problems in the Iranian Health Science and Research Journals including incentive system, reviewer characteristics, and structural problems.
    CONCLUSION: Findings of the current study are usable for all Iranian Health Scientific Journals, editors, editors in chief, and internal managers as well as lawmakers in the area of scientific research.
    Keywords:  Articles; health promotion; health scientific journals; review process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_162_19
  4. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Oct 01. 20(10): 1125
    Similarity Index Analysis of the Manuscript: A Viewpoint.
    Shailesh M Gondivkar, Sachin C Sarode, Amol R Gadbail, Gargi S Sarode, Shankargouda Patil.
      Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism have been considered the major academic/scientific misconduct in writing the research.1 In recent decades, plagiarism detection has become relatively easy with the evolution of newer software.2,3 Undoubtedly, many scientific journals evaluate the received manuscripts for plagiarism/similarity index and strictly refuse to consider manuscripts with higher similarity index for further publication process. In addition, if plagiarism is reported in the published articles, authors may pose various academic, professional, and legal consequences. This is definitely fruitful in producing originality of the articles with newer ideas/concepts in research design.
  5. Ear Hear. 2020 Jan/Feb;41(1):41(1): 1-2
    Editorial: Preregistration and Open Science Practices in Hearing Science and Audiology: The Time Has Come.
    Mario A Svirsky.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000817
  6. J Grad Med Educ. 2019 Dec;11(6): 621-623
    Is Medical Education Ready for Universal Open Access to Research?
    John M Willinsky, Lauren A Maggio.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00699.1
  7. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Dec 23. 21(12): e16532
    Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals.
    Jeremy C Wyatt.
      The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.
    Keywords:  fraudulent journals; knowledge management; mobilizing computable knowledge; open access; predatory journals; scientific journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/16532
  8. J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Jan/Feb;31(1):31(1): 1-2
    The Value of Scholarly Published Material: From Initial Dissemination to Updates and Citations in Real Time.
    Mutaz B Habal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006246
  9. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2019 Dec 27.
    Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High-Profile Nursing Journals.
    Wang Jiancheng, Tian Jinhui, Han Lin, Ma Yuxia, Zhang Juxia.
       BACKGROUND: The PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) was developed to guide authors to present a structured abstract. However, the adherence of abstracts to these guidelines in some areas was of concern.
    AIMS: To determine whether the publication of PRISMA-A resulted in an improvement in the abstracts reported with nursing systematic reviews (SRs).
    METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials-based SRs published in top-tier nursing journals. A PRISMA-A checklist was used to assess abstracts in the SR included. Total score on checklists, comparison of total scores between two periods, and effect factors were analyzed.
    RESULTS: Overall, abstract reporting compliance with PRISMA-A has not improved significantly with the time span. Of the 81 SRs, 74.1% were structured. About half reported eligibility criteria, information sources, and description of the effect as recommended. Registration status was reported only in 4.9%. The reporting quality was significantly higher for journals with higher impact factors (p < .001).
    LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Although not inclusive of all SRs in the nursing field, our sample reflects the general trend that there was no significant improvement in the compliance of SR abstracts reported in nursing with the release of PRISMA-A. There is room for improvement, as most items have not been fully reported.
    Keywords:  PRISMA-A; abstract; report; reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12414
  10. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Dec 21. pii: S0196-0644(19)31358-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Spin in Scientific Publications: A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice.
    Isabelle Boutron.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.11.002
  11. J Law Biosci. 2019 Oct;6(1): 255-288
    Open forensic science.
    Jason M Chin, Gianni Ribeiro, Alicia Rairden.
      The mainstream sciences are experiencing a revolution of methodology. This revolution was inspired, in part, by the realization that a surprising number of findings in the bioscientific literature could not be replicated or reproduced by independent laboratories. In response, scientific norms and practices are rapidly moving towards openness. These reforms promise many enhancements to the scientific process, notably improved efficiency and reliability of findings. Changes are also underway in the forensic. After years of legal-scientific criticism and several reports from peak scientific bodies, efforts are underway to establish the validity of several forensic practices and ensure forensic scientists perform and present their work in a scientifically valid way. In this article, the authors suggest that open science reforms are distinctively suited to addressing the problems faced by forensic science. Openness comports with legal and criminal justice values, helping ensure expert forensic evidence is more reliable and susceptible to rational evaluation by the trier of fact. In short, open forensic science allows parties in legal proceedings to understand and assess the strength of the case against them, resulting in fairer outcomes. Moreover, several emerging open science initiatives allow for speedier and more collaborative research.
    Keywords:  neuroscience; open science; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz009
  12. Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Dec 23.
    Percentage of Studies Presented at a Conference Prior to Publication in Emergency Medicine Journals.
    Michael Gottlieb, Dayle Davenport, Jessen Schiebout, Richard Trevino, Yanina Purim-Shem-Tov.
      Traditionally, authors will present a manuscript at a conference prior to submitting the subsequent manuscript for consideration in a journal. While peer-reviewed publications are typically considered to be the gold standard in research,1 presentation of abstracts at conferences have several distinct advantages. First, presentation of abstracts at a conference offers an opportunity for early feedback and review, which can help identify issues prior to submission. This can allow authors the ability to refine their study question or revise their study design prior to completion of the project.
    Keywords:  abstract; faculty development; manuscript; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13911
  13. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Dec 23.
    Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
    Demian Glujovsky, Carlos E Sueldo, Ariel Bardach, María Del Pilar Valanzasca, Daniel Comandé, Agustín Ciapponi.
       PURPOSE: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it.
    METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs' QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect.
    RESULTS: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05.
    CONCLUSION: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.
    Keywords:  Magnitude of the effect; Quality of evidence; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-y
  14. Eur J Histochem. 2019 Dec 23. 63(4):
    A journal of histochemistry as a forum for non-histochemical scientific societies.
    Carlo Pellicciari, Marco Biggiogera, Manuela Malatesta.
      Histochemical techniques are widely applied in biomedical research and, during the last twenty years, they were among the methods used in more than 590,000 scientific articles in indexed journals. However, a very small percentage of these papers were published in strictly histochemical journals. A possible strategy to widen the audience of the histochemical journals making them attractive to non-histochemist authors might be to publish and make open-access available the proceedings of the meetings and conferences of valued scientific societies whose fellows use microscopy and histochemistry in their experimental activity. In the last years' experience of the European Journal of Histochemistry, this approach was effective to increase the number of published articles on stem cells and development, connective tissue and nerve cell biology.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4081/ejh.2019.3106
  15. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Dec 23. 21(12): e17578
    Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications.
    Gunther Eysenbach.
      In this 20th anniversary theme issue, we are celebrating how JMIR Publications, an innovative publisher deeply rooted in academia and created by scientists for scientists, pioneered the open access model, is advancing digital health research, is disrupting the scholarly publishing world, and is helping to empower patients. All this has been made possible by the disintermediating power of the internet. And we are not done innovating: Our new series of "superjournals," called JMIRx, will provide a glimpse into what we see as the future and end goal in scholarly publishing: open science. In this model, the vast majority of papers will be published on preprint servers first, with "overlay" journals then competing to peer review and publish peer-reviewed "versions of record" of the best papers.
    Keywords:  JMIR; digital health; ehealth; electronic publishing; history of science; internet; journalogy; medical informatics; open access; open science; overlay journal; participatory medicine; preprints; scholarly publishing; science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/17578
  16. Diabet Med. 2019 Dec 23.
    The trend of misspelled HbA1c in scientific articles.
    R K Mishra, P Chhabra, R Sambrook.
      Analysis of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the blood is essential as it provides information about a person's average blood glucose levels during the previous 2-3 months [1]. The aim of this study was to identify and analyse the nature and frequency of HbA1c-associated typographical errors in a bibliographic database. An unrestricted PubMed search was performed to identify all indexed publications from inception to 25 April 2019 with possible HbA1c variations in titles and abstracts.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14222
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.