bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–04–12
eightteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Nature to join open-access Plan S, publisher says.
  2. Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work.
  3. SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information.
  4. Journal Flexibility in the Troubling Times of COVID-19.
  5. "It's About How Hard You Can Get Hit and Keep Moving Forward": How to Survive Rejection and Get Your Research Published.
  6. Navigating the NIH Public Access Policy for Peer-Reviewed Manuscripts - Why and How to get a PMCID Number.
  7. The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.
  8. Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial.
  9. Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.
  10. Awareness of predatory publishing.
  11. Making social sciences more scientific: Literature review by structured data.
  12. Online survey about the STROBE Statement highlighted divergent views about its content, purpose, and value.
  13. Thoughts on Writing for Review: A Former JASMS Associate Editor's Perspective.
  14. Interaction among Cardiovascular Scientific Journals in Brazil: A Model that should be Better Explored.
  15. Consent for publishing patient photographs.
  16. Deidentification of facial photographs: a survey of editorial policies and practices.
  17. Using journal alerts to support your continuing professional development.
  18. Corrigendum to: Publishing Consensus Conference Proceedings: Can We Avoid Missed Opportunities While Effectively Managing Bias?
  1. Nature. 2020 Apr 09.
    Nature to join open-access Plan S, publisher says.
    Richard Van Noorden.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01066-5
  2. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(4): e0229446
    Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work.
    Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, John Barry Ryan, Kathleen Searles, Yotam Shmargad.
      To disseminate research, scholars once relied on university media services or journal press releases, but today any academic can turn to Twitter to share their published work with a broader audience. The possibility that scholars can push their research out, rather than hope that it is pulled in, holds the potential for scholars to draw wide attention to their research. In this manuscript, we examine whether there are systematic differences in the types of scholars who most benefit from this push model. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which there are gender differences in the dissemination of research via Twitter. We carry out our analyses by tracking tweet patterns for articles published in six journals across two fields (political science and communication), and we pair this Twitter data with demographic and educational data about the authors of the published articles, as well as article citation rates. We find considerable evidence that, overall, article citations are positively correlated with tweets about the article, and we find little evidence to suggest that author gender affects the transmission of research in this new media.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229446
  3. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Apr;108(2): 286-294
    SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information.
    Taneya Y Koonce, Mallory N Blasingame, Jerry Zhao, Annette M Williams, Jing Su, Spencer J DesAutels, Dario A Giuse, John D Clark, Zachary E Fox, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse.
       Background: Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting journals for publication, the authors recognized an opportunity to build a decision support tool, SPI-Hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™, to capture the team's collective publishing industry knowledge, while carefully retaining the quality of service.
    Case Presentation: SPI-Hub's decision support functionality relies on a data framework that describes journal publication policies and practices through a newly designed metadata structure, the Knowledge Management Journal Record™. Metadata fields are populated through a semi-automated process that uses custom programming to access content from multiple sources. Each record includes 25 metadata fields representing best publishing practices. Currently, the database includes more than 24,000 health sciences journal records. To correctly capture the resources needed for both completion and future maintenance of the project, the team conducted an internal study to assess time requirements for completing records through different stages of automation.
    Conclusions: The journal decision support tool, SPI-Hub, provides an opportunity to assess publication practices by compiling data from a variety of sources in a single location. Automated and semi-automated approaches have effectively reduced the time needed for data collection. Through a comprehensive knowledge management framework and the incorporation of multiple quality points specific to each journal, SPI-Hub provides prospective users with both recommendations for publication and holistic assessment of the trustworthiness of journals in which to publish research and acquire trusted knowledge.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.815
  4. Plant Physiol. 2020 04;182(4): 1795
    Journal Flexibility in the Troubling Times of COVID-19.
    Blake Meyers, Ivan Baxter, Mike Blatt, Lee Sweetlove, Henry Daniell, John Lunn, Crispin Taylor, Nancy Winchester.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.20.00347
  5. Stroke. 2020 Apr 09. STROKEAHA119028857
    "It's About How Hard You Can Get Hit and Keep Moving Forward": How to Survive Rejection and Get Your Research Published.
    Robert Fahed, Michel Shamy, Dar Dowlatshahi.
      
    Keywords:  education; peer review; publication; remuneration; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.028857
  6. Kans J Med. 2020 ;13(Suppl 2): 20-23
    Navigating the NIH Public Access Policy for Peer-Reviewed Manuscripts - Why and How to get a PMCID Number.
    Robin Liston, Richard J Barohn.
      
    Keywords:  NIHMS; PMCID; Public Access Policy; non-compliance
  7. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Apr;108(2): 177-184
    The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.
    Michelle R Demetres, Diana Delgado, Drew N Wright.
       Objective: Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements. However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance.
    Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus (Elsevier), and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (EBSCO). A total of 6,593 citations were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
    Results: Thirteen included studies were divided into 3 areas of impact: citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative impact. Those focusing on citation count (n=5) and exposure or presence (n=7) demonstrated positive impacts of IRs on institutions and researchers. One study focusing on administrative benefit demonstrated the utility of IRs in automated population of ORCID profiles.
    Conclusion: Based on the available literature, IRs appear to have a positive impact on citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative burden. To draw stronger conclusions, more and higher-quality studies are needed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.856
  8. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Mar;7(3): 191818
    Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial.
    Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Adrian Aldcroft, Adrian G Barnett.
      Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing. A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles. The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication. The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups. The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools. What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.
    Keywords:  data sharing; incentives; open science; policy; randomized controlled trial; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191818
  9. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Apr;108(2): 208-218
    Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.
    Stephanie M Swanberg, Joanna Thielen, Nancy Bulgarelli.
       Objective: The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.
    Methods: A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents' ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.
    Results: A total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term "predatory OA journal." Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391).
    Conclusions: Survey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.849
  10. ESMO Open. 2020 Apr;pii: e000677. [Epub ahead of print]5(2):
    Awareness of predatory publishing.
    Lloyd Panjikaran, Aju Mathew.
      
    Keywords:  predatory journal; predatory publishing; research communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000677
  11. MethodsX. 2020 ;7 100818
    Making social sciences more scientific: Literature review by structured data.
    Vuong Quan-Hoang, Le Anh-Vinh, La Viet-Phuong, Hoang Phuong-Hanh, Ho Manh-Toan.
      The paper proposes a new method for conducting a literature review by structured data of more than 2200 scientific articles and 1300 researchers on SSHPA (Social Sciences and Humanities Peer Awards), an open database of Vietnamese social scientists' scientific productivity. Based on the logical structure of SSHPA, the authors create a specialized database for the literature review: SDA (SSHPA Data Analysis). Combining expert's caliber and computational algorithms, SDA is expected to offer an immensely efficient and analytical based method of scanning data, hence ameliorating the traditional approach to conducting a literature review.•A specialized database for literature review is created using the scientific articles and author profiles from SSHPA, an open database of Vietnamese social scientists' productivity.•The review database assigns values of topics or methodological attributes to articles sourced from SSHPA.•Then, the authors can query comprehensive data tables, graphs, or diagrams to use for literature review.
    Keywords:  Database; Literature review; NAFOSTED, National Foundation for Science & Technology Development; SDA, SSHPA Data Analysis; SSHPA, Social Sciences and Humanities Peer Awards; Structured data; Vietnam
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100818
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr 04. pii: S0895-4356(19)30717-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Online survey about the STROBE Statement highlighted divergent views about its content, purpose, and value.
    Melissa K Sharp, Ketevan Glonti, Darko Hren.
       BACKGROUND: The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude towards and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE.
    METHODS: A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%.
    RESULTS: Fifteen percent (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) Perceptions of the Checklist, 2) Academic confidence, 3) Use in education and training, 4) Journal Endorsement and Use in Peer Review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use.
    CONCLUSIONS: Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection upon one's own work. Additionally, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.025
  13. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2020 Apr 06.
    Thoughts on Writing for Review: A Former JASMS Associate Editor's Perspective.
    Kelsey D Cook.
      This is an invited Account and Perspective, providing observations and advice on writing for review derived from a 40-year academic career that has included 27 years' service as an Associate Editor for the Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry (JASMS) and nearly 14 years at the National Science Foundation. This work describes an Associate Editor's perspective. It offers observations on what editors and reviewers look for in manuscripts, and some of the more common, best avoided mistakes. Emphasis is on JASMS guidelines, but many elements should be generally applicable and are intended for use by both authors and reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/jasms.9b00123
  14. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020 Mar;pii: S0066-782X2020000300433. [Epub ahead of print]114(3): 433-434
    Interaction among Cardiovascular Scientific Journals in Brazil: A Model that should be Better Explored.
    Carlos Eduardo Rochitte.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20200159
  15. Case Rep Womens Health. 2020 Apr;26 e00194
    Consent for publishing patient photographs.
    Marija Roguljić, Elizabeth Wager.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crwh.2020.e00194
  16. J Med Ethics. 2020 Apr 06. pii: medethics-2019-105823. [Epub ahead of print]
    Deidentification of facial photographs: a survey of editorial policies and practices.
    Marija Roguljić, Ivan Buljan, Nika Veček, Ružica Dragun, Matko Marušić, Elizabeth Wager, Ana Marušić.
      We analysed all journals from two Journal Citation Reports (JCR) categories: 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine' and 'Otorhinolaryngology' published in 2018 for their policies on publishing facial photographs and actual practices of publishing these photographs in articles. We extracted the following data for each journal: JCR category, impact factor, volume, issue, instructions for authors regarding ethical issues, instructions for photograph deidentification, journals' references to standard research and publishing policies, presence and type of published clinical images, separate informed consent for the publication of patient photograph and methods of deidentification. The sample included 103 journals, which published 568 articles with 1404 clinical images. Around a half of the journals (52%) had a policy on clinical images, however, the only predictor of having a journal policy on clinical images was reference in the policy to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations (OR=3.00, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.14, p=0.013). Identifiable patient photographs were found in 13% (79/568) of the articles, constituting 9% (128/1404) of the total sample of images. Only 16% (13/79) of articles publishing recognisable patient facial images included a statement about consent for publication of the image. From the total sample of articles, 34% (27/79) contained deidentified but recognisable patient photographs and only 22% (6/27) of them had a statement about patient consent for photograph publication. The patients' consent was more likely stated in the article in cases of recognisable facial images (OR=2.81, 95% CI 1.41 to 5.63, p=0.004). Journals publishing clinical research involving the face and neck region need to establish and enforce policies on publishing clinical images.
    Keywords:  confidentiality/privacy; ethics; informed consent; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105823
  17. J Vis Commun Med. 2020 Apr 06. 1-4
    Using journal alerts to support your continuing professional development.
    David Bryson.
      There are many ways to keep up to date with research that affects your role and personal development. You can regularly use PubMed or Scholar to find recent papers using keyword searches, you can rely on others to do the work for you with literature reviews, share the job with Journal clubs or using Journal alerts you can have the papers and research you want delivered to your inbox.
    Keywords:  CPD; alerts; journals; learning; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2020.1740583
  18. Pain Med. 2020 Apr 10. pii: pnaa098. [Epub ahead of print]
    Corrigendum to: Publishing Consensus Conference Proceedings: Can We Avoid Missed Opportunities While Effectively Managing Bias?
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaa098
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.