bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–01–05
fourteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows.
  2. Guidance for communicating research findings to participants.
  3. Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed.
  4. Editorial: Is Open Access for You? It Depends Who "You" Are.
  5. Industry payments to authors of Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery shoulder arthroplasty manuscripts are accurately disclosed by most authors and are not significantly associated with better reported treatment outcomes.
  6. Online platforms and social networks for the creation of research profiles.
  7. A toast to the error detectors.
  8. The Scholarship Circle: an introduction to writing for publication for nursing faculty.
  9. Sharing your work by self-archiving: encouragement from the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
  10. Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.
  11. [Informe sobre el Proceso Editorial interno de la Revista en 2019].
  12. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review.
  13. Open Access Change.
  14. State of the Journal, 2019.
  1. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jan;108(1): 47-58
    Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows.
    Robin O'Hanlon, Jeanine McSweeney, Samuel Stabler.
       Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.
    Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.
    Results: The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.
    Conclusions: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.751
  2. BMJ. 2020 Jan 03. 368 m1
    Guidance for communicating research findings to participants.
    Amanda J Hunn.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1
  3. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Dec 30. pii: ocz209. [Epub ahead of print]
    Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed.
    James R Rogers, Hollis Mills, Lisa V Grossman, Andrew Goldstein, Chunhua Weng.
      Scientific commentaries are expected to play an important role in evidence appraisal, but it is unknown whether this expectation has been fulfilled. This study aims to better understand the role of scientific commentary in evidence appraisal. We queried PubMed for all clinical research articles with accompanying comments and extracted corresponding metadata. Five percent of clinical research studies (N = 130 629) received postpublication comments (N = 171 556), resulting in 178 882 comment-article pairings, with 90% published in the same journal. We obtained 5197 full-text comments for topic modeling and exploratory sentiment analysis. Topics were generally disease specific with only a few topics relevant to the appraisal of studies, which were highly prevalent in letters. Of a random sample of 518 full-text comments, 67% had a supportive tone. Based on our results, published commentary, with the exception of letters, most often highlight or endorse previous publications rather than serve as a prominent mechanism for critical appraisal.
    Keywords:  PubMed; publishing; scientific commentary; scientific communication; topic modeling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz209
  4. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Dec 26.
    Editorial: Is Open Access for You? It Depends Who "You" Are.
    Seth S Leopold.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001101
  5. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Dec 30. pii: S1058-2746(19)30706-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Industry payments to authors of Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery shoulder arthroplasty manuscripts are accurately disclosed by most authors and are not significantly associated with better reported treatment outcomes.
    Jeremy S Somerson, Matthew C Comley, Ahmed Mansi, Moni B Neradilek, Frederick A Matsen.
       BACKGROUND: Author transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest when reporting outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty implants is important. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (OPP) database, we analyzed articles in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery to evaluate (1) discrepancies between the stated conflicts of interest and associated payments recorded in the database, (2) the magnitude and types of payments received, and (3) possible relationships between industry financial support and positive study outcomes.
    METHODS: Articles reporting clinical outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed. Articles identifying a specific shoulder arthroplasty implant and having at least 1 author based in the United States were included. Payment types, amounts, and sources were extracted from disclosure statements in the manuscript and considered relevant if they were received from the implant manufacturer. Published disclosure statements were compared against the OPP database. Study outcomes demonstrating a clinical benefit were considered "positive." Payments to authors reporting positive outcomes were compared with those reporting nonpositive outcomes.
    RESULTS: Implant manufacturers provided $16,051,261 to authors of shoulder arthroplasty publications over a 2-year period. Approximately half of senior authors (46%) received royalty payments, more than 90% of which ($14,910,873; 93%) were reported in disclosure statements. Although authors of articles with positive outcomes received greater payments than those reporting nonpositive outcomes, these differences were not statistically significant.
    CONCLUSION: The majority of author disclosure statements accurately reflected the OPP data. Payments were not significantly associated with positive outcomes reported for the specific implant.
    Keywords:  Conflict of interest; Sunshine Act; disclosure; industry; open payments; shoulder arthroplasty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.045
  6. Farm Hosp. 2020 Jan 01. 44(1): 20-25
    Online platforms and social networks for the creation of research profiles.
    Clara López-Hermoso, María Victoria Gil-Navarro, Laila Abdel-Kader-Martín, Bernardo Santos-Ramos.
      Nowadays, scientific communication is enriched by the use of new ways of storing, publishing and disseminating research findings. Said new ways of  scientific communication are known as the so-called academic  profile platforms, which include Scopus author ID, ORCID, Publons and  Kudos and -on the other hand- social research networks, including  Research-Gate, Academia.edu and Google Scholar citations. These tools  have a main objective: enhancing both visibility and impact of contents  and publications. They are multidisciplinary web pages that contain  individual research profiles with network hyperlinks to magazines,  databases and other sources. In some cases, bibliometric indicators are  included, which allow measuring the impact caused by studies based on  literature. This study compares the main online platforms, as well as  some of the social research networks that currently exist for the  creation of research profiles.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7399/fh.11304
  7. Nature. 2020 Jan;577(7788): 9
    A toast to the error detectors.
    Simine Vazire.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
  8. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jan;108(1): 98-105
    The Scholarship Circle: an introduction to writing for publication for nursing faculty.
    Kerry Dhakal, Joni Tornwall.
       Background: This case report describes a collaborative effort between a health sciences librarian and an instructional designer to create and implement a writing professional development experience called the Scholarship Circle. It was aimed at increasing scholarly productivity by junior and nontenure-track faculty in a college of nursing.
    Case Presentation: The Scholarship Circle activities were carried out in a synchronous and an asynchronous online environment over ten weeks and included weekly lectures from nurse-scholars, discussions and peer reviews, and writing support from the librarian. The Scholarship Circle designers surveyed participants before and after the course to explore faculty perceptions and conducted a bibliographic analysis to gauge increases in scholarly productivity.
    Conclusions: While both tenure-track and nontenure-track faculty perceived lack of time as a significant barrier to publication, only nontenure-track faculty perceived lack of writing experience and getting started as significant obstacles. In the two years following the Scholarship Circle, faculty with doctor of philosophy and doctor of education degrees produced the greatest number of scholarly publications, whereas faculty with other degrees demonstrated a modest increase in scholarship. Online writing support programs have the potential to positively impact scholarly productivity for junior and nontenure-track faculty, especially if they emphasize time management for writing, confidence-building strategies, and a flexible format that allows peer review and collaboration as well as participation by seasoned scholars and remote participants. Partnership between health sciences librarians and instructional designers is key to the successful design and implementation of writing support programs.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.685
  9. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jan;108(1): 1-4
    Sharing your work by self-archiving: encouragement from the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
    Abigail Goben, Katherine G Akers.
      Self-archiving offers opportunities for authors to more broadly disseminate their work-both in pre-print form before its submission to a journal and in post-print form after its acceptance and publication in a journal. This editorial provides authors with guidance in navigating the rapidly changing options for self-archiving and affirms that the Journal of the Medical Library Association encourages authors to self-archive their work to boost its reach and impact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.877
  10. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 27
    Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.
    Pauline A J Steegmans, Nicola Di Girolamo, Reint A Meursinge Reynders.
       Background: Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called "spin". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.
    Methods: Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of "spin" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.
    Discussion: We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.
    Keywords:  Adverse effect; Adverse event; Harm; Intervention; Misleading extrapolation; Misleading interpretation; Misleading reporting; Orthodontics; Reporting; Safety; Spin; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4
  11. Farm Hosp. 2020 Jan 03. 44(1): 11378
    [Informe sobre el Proceso Editorial interno de la Revista en 2019].
    Editor Jefe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7399/fh.11378
  12. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019 Dec 30. 21(1): 79
    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review.
    Warren J Manning.
      There were 89 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 76 original research papers, 4 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2017 with a corresponding 15% decrease in manuscript submissions from 405 to 346 and thus reflects a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 25 to 26%. The decrease in submissions for the year followed the initiation of the increased author processing charge (APC) for Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) members for manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2018 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2019) was slightly lower at 5.1 (vs. 5.46 for 2017; as published in June 2018. The 2018 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2016 and 2017 was cited 5.1 times in 2018. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.82.In accordance with Open-Access publishing guidelines of BMC, the JCMR articles are published on-line in a continuus fashion in the chronologic order of acceptance, with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful for the JCMR audience to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or themes, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and contemporaneous JCMR publications. In this publication, the manuscripts are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought within the journal. In addition, as in the past two years, I have used this publication to also convey information regarding the editorial process and as a "State of our JCMR."This is the 12th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC (formerly known as Biomed Central). The timing of the JCMR transition to the open access platform was "ahead of the curve" and a tribute to the vision of Dr. Matthias Friedrich, the SCMR Publications Committee Chair and Dr. Dudley Pennell, the JCMR editor-in-chief at the time. The open-access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications and I hope that you, our authors, will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. It takes a village to run a journal and I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. This entire process would also not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 4th year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!
    Keywords:  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Editorial process; Imaging; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-019-0594-8
  13. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 02.
    Open Access Change.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4434
  14. Am J Occup Ther. 2019 Nov/Dec;73(6):73(6): 7306070010p1-7306070010p5
    State of the Journal, 2019.
    Lorie Gage Richards.
      The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) remains the most highly ranked occupational therapy journal, as measured by its journal impact factor. AJOT's goals are to remain occupational therapy's leading research journal, publish high-quality research that reflects the breadth of research related to occupational therapy, and have disciplinary and interdisciplinary impact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.736003
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.