bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–03–15
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations.
  2. How to get published.
  3. Lack of Transparency in Publishing Negative Clinical Trial Results.
  4. Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals.
  5. Words matter: jargon alienates readers.
  6. How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?
  7. Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.
  8. Specialized Social Media Team Increases Online Impact and Presence: The Journal of Neurosurgery Experience.
  9. Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period.
  10. Publishers try out alternative pathways to open access.
  11. Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.
  12. The New Silk Road: An Information Pipeline for the Global Industrial Complex of Scholarly Publication.
  13. Consortium of Otolaryngology Journal Editors: Collegiality and Contributions.
  14. Academic Publishing and the Future of Open Access.
  15. Beware predatory journals.
  16. Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model.
  1. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(3): e0228914
    Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations.
    Meredith T Niles, Lesley A Schimanski, Erin C McKiernan, Juan Pablo Alperin.
      Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914
  2. Br Dent J. 2020 Mar;228(5): 317-318
    How to get published.
    M Jackson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1375-3
  3. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2020 Apr;pii: S0891-8422(19)30108-9. [Epub ahead of print]37(2): 385-389
    Lack of Transparency in Publishing Negative Clinical Trial Results.
    Robert J Snyder.
      Researchers often do not publish negative results; positive outcome reported bias remains rampant. This problem is pervasive throughout the medical continuum. Failure to release less than favorable results could be construed as ethically and morally inappropriate. Failure to make public less than favorable outcomes stifles the scientific process and is contrary to the precepts of the Declaration of Helsinki and the World Health Organization. Sponsors and researchers must embrace the ideal of publishing well-designed studies with negative results.
    Keywords:  Clinical research; Negative results; Randomized control trials
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2019.12.013
  4. Nature. 2020 Mar 11.
    Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals.
    Richard Van Noorden.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00709-x
  5. Nature. 2020 03;579(7798): 309
    Words matter: jargon alienates readers.
    Chris Woolston.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00580-w
  6. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020 Jan-Mar;18(1):18(1): 1804
    How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?
    Pharmacy Practice 2019 peer reviewers
      Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues' manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals' rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.
    Keywords:  Open Access Publishing; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2020.1.1804
  7. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 5
    Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.
    Shelby Rauh, Trevor Torgerson, Austin L Johnson, Jonathan Pollard, Daniel Tritz, Matt Vassar.
       Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications.
    Methods: The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access.
    Results: Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis.
    Conclusions: Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.
    Keywords:  Cross-sectional; Neurology; Reproducibility; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-0091-5
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 05.
    Specialized Social Media Team Increases Online Impact and Presence: The Journal of Neurosurgery Experience.
    Joseph R Linzey, Faith Christine Robertson, Ali S Haider, Christopher Salvatore Graffeo, Justin Z Wang, Gillian Shasby, Naif Mitla Alotaibi, Aaron A Cohen-Gadol, James T Rutka.
       BACKGROUND: Social media use continues to gain momentum in academic neurosurgery. To increase journal impact and engage more broadly, many journals have turned to social media to disseminate research. The Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) established a dedicated, specialized social media team (SMT) in November 2016 to provide targeted improvement in digital outreach.
    OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of the JNSPG social media team as measured by increased engagement.
    METHODS: This study analyzes metrics, including impressions, engagements, retweets, likes, profile clicks, and URL clicks, from consecutive social media posts from the JNSPG's Twitter and Facebook platforms between 2/1/2015 and 2/28/2019. Standard descriptive statistics were utilized.
    RESULTS: Between February 2015 and October 2016, when a specialized SMT was created, 170 tweets (8.1 tweets/month) were posted compared to 3,220 tweets (115.0 tweets/month) between November 2016 and February 2019. All metrics significantly increased, including the impressions per tweet (1,646.3±934.9 vs. 4,605.6±65,546.5, P=.01), engagements per tweet (35.2±40.6 vs. 198.2±1,037.2, P<.001), retweets (2.5±2.8 vs. 10.5±15.3, P<.001), likes (2.5±4.0 vs. 18.0±37.9, P<.001), profile clicks (1.5±2.0 vs. 5.2±43.3, P<.001), and URLs clicks (13.1±14.9 vs. 38.3±67.9, P<.001). Tweets that were posted on the weekend compared to weekdays had significantly more retweets (9.2±9.8 vs. 13.4±25.6, P<.001), likes (15.3±17.9 vs. 23.7±70.4, P=.001), and URL clicks per tweet (33.4±40.5 vs. 49.5±117.3, P<.001). Between November 2015 and October 2016, 49 Facebook posts (2.3 posts/month) were sent compared to 2,282 posts (81.5 posts/month) between November 2016 and February 2019. All Facebook metrics significantly increased, including impressions (5,475.9±5,483.0 vs. 8,506.1±13,113.9, P<.001), engagements (119.3±194.8 vs. 283.8±733.8, P<.001), and reach (2,266.6±2,388.3 vs. 5,344.1±8,399.2, P<.001). Weekend Facebook posts had significantly more impressions per post (7,967.9±9,901.0 vs. 9,737.8±19,013.4, P=.03) and a higher total reach (4,975.8±6,309.8 vs. 6,108.2±12,219.7, P=.03) than weekday posts.
    CONCLUSIONS: Social media has been established as a crucial tool for the propagation of neurosurgical research and education. The implementation of the JNSPG specialized social media team had a demonstrable impact on increasing the online visibility of social media content.
    CLINICALTRIAL:
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/17741
  9. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020 Mar 05.
    Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period.
    Vishal Gupta, Riti Bhatia, Mona Pathak, M Ramam.
       Background: Despite an interest in the editorial process at biomedical journals, not much information is available on this topic.
    Aims: To study the characteristics of the submissions to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) and analyze the editorial and peer-review process and factors influencing the final outcome.
    Methods: Retrospective review of the manuscripts submitted to the IJDVL from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016.
    Results: The IJDVL received 639 manuscripts during the study period, most being Case reports (35%), Research articles (30%), and Letters to editor (20%). The proportion of submissions from Indian (53%) and foreign (47%) authors was comparable. About 55% (n = 353/639) of the submissions were editorially rejected. Some of the common reasons for editorial rejection included "sub-optimal images," "no novelty," "incomplete information or results," and "incorrect diagnosis or interpretation of results." The acceptance rate during this period was 19%. The median number of days to reach the final decision was 14 days for editorial rejection, 146 days for acceptance, and 85 days for rejection after external peer-review. The acceptance rates were higher for submissions from Indian authors [odds ratio (OR) 1.96], those submitted as Letters (OR 2.06), or in the area of tropical infections (OR 2.17). Submissions as research articles (expB = 1.23), those from Indian authors (expB = 1.15), final decision being acceptance (expB = 1.56), and those requiring preliminary author revisions (expB = 3.34), external re-reviews (expB = 2.22), and repeated author re-revisions (expB = 2.34) were associated with longer times to reach final decision.
    Limitations: A relatively short study period of 6 months.
    Conclusion: The IJDVL attracts submissions both from India and abroad. Articles submitted in the Letters category or related to tropical infections were most likely to be accepted. There is scope for improving the time taken for editorial processing of manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Acceptance; editorial process; journal; peer-review; rejection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_119_19
  10. Science. 2020 Mar 13. 367(6483): 1179
    Publishers try out alternative pathways to open access.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.367.6483.1179
  11. Res Involv Engagem. 2020 ;6 8
    Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.
    Suzanne Day, Stuart Rennie, Danyang Luo, Joseph D Tucker.
      Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.
    Keywords:  Accountability; Open access; Public stakeholders; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y
  12. J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Mar/Apr;31(2):31(2): 331-332
    The New Silk Road: An Information Pipeline for the Global Industrial Complex of Scholarly Publication.
    Mutaz B Habal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006366
  13. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020 Mar 09.
    Consortium of Otolaryngology Journal Editors: Collegiality and Contributions.
    James R Tysome.
      There is a new tradition in the otolaryngology publishing community that is unique to our specialty, so far as we know. Editors-in-Chief of otolaryngology journals in the United States, and intermittently some of our international colleagues such as the Editor of the Journal of Laryngology and Otology (England), sit down together twice a year to discuss topics of mutual interest, maintain lines of communication and friendships, and share perspectives on the evolution of otolaryngology - head and neck surgery and needs that our journals might help address.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13526
  14. Optom Vis Sci. 2020 Mar;97(3): 135-136
    Academic Publishing and the Future of Open Access.
    Michael D Twa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001494
  15. Br Dent J. 2020 Mar;228(5): 317
    Beware predatory journals.
    A Keogh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1374-4
  16. JAMA. 2020 Mar 10. 323(10): 999
    Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model.
    Trevor J Royce, Nikhil G Thaker, Ankit Agarwal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0400
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.