bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–05–10
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research.
  2. The Role of Scientific Publishing in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.
  3. [Latest information on COVID-19 on one platform-for all journals].
  4. All that's fit to preprint.
  5. A publishing pandemic during the COVID-19 pandemic: how challenging can it become?
  6. Watching the detectives: The multiple lives of academic editing.
  7. The limitations to our understanding of peer review.
  8. Open access, open data and peer review.
  9. What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for?
  10. Supporting a definition of predatory publishing.
  11. In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough.
  12. Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review.
  13. [Publish via open access thanks to the DEAL agreement : Give your scientific articles the widest possible distribution].
  14. Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons?
  15. The open access financial model hinders the growth of medical physics research in low- and middle-income countries.
  16. A comparative study on the turnaround time of article processing in dermatology journals: A need for improvement of this aspect in Indian journals.
  17. Publication impacts: more than a number.
  18. An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.
  19. New journal for reproduction and replication results.
  20. Toolkit: How to build a career in scientific publishing.
  21. IJED support for eating disorders research in the time of COVID-19.
  22. Toolkit: How to work in science communication.
  23. How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article.
  24. How the creators of a database are stamping out all-male panels.
  25. The software that powers scientific illustration.
  26. Letter to the editor in support of data sharing, with caveats.
  27. Lessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry (submitted).
  28. Journals, referees, and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009-2014.
  29. How to write that paper.
  30. Consider Clinical Therapeutics for Your Next Psychiatry Submission.
  1. Nature. 2020 May 07.
    How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research.
    Diana Kwon.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; SARS-CoV-2
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01394-6
  2. Pharmacotherapy. 2020 May 04.
    The Role of Scientific Publishing in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.
    C Lindsay DeVane.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2402
  3. Notf Rett Med. 2020 ;23(3): 161-162
    [Latest information on COVID-19 on one platform-for all journals].
    I Wolff.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-020-00703-w
  4. Nat Biotechnol. 2020 May 05.
    All that's fit to preprint.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0536-x
  5. Croat Med J. 2020 04 30. 61(2): 79-81
    A publishing pandemic during the COVID-19 pandemic: how challenging can it become?
    Lea Škorić, Anton Glasnović, Jelka Petrak.
      
  6. Hist Psychol. 2020 May;23(2): 149-153
    Watching the detectives: The multiple lives of academic editing.
    Wade E Pickren.
      There are as many approaches to academic editing as there are editors. I suspect that for those of us who make editing a large part of our professional lives, it is also a constantly evolving process of learning, adapting, and, sometimes, improvising. I have served as an editor of books and journals for the last 18 years, including a term as editor of this journal. My statements here reflect my thoughts about editing academic journals, although the principles I employ are operative in all forms of my editorial work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000120
  7. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 6
    The limitations to our understanding of peer review.
    Jonathan P Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer.
      Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.
    Keywords:  Open peer review; Peer review studies; Quality assurance; Quality control; Reproducibility; Research impact; Scholarly communication; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
  8. Genome Biol. 2020 May 04. 21(1): 86
    Open access, open data and peer review.
    Jernej Ule.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02005-3
  9. Genome Biol. 2020 May 04. 21(1): 87
    What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for?
    Willem Halffman, Serge P J M Horbach.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02004-4
  10. BMC Med. 2020 May 08. 18(1): 125
    Supporting a definition of predatory publishing.
    Edoardo Aromataris, Cindy Stern.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Dissemination; Predatory journals; Predatory publishing; Publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01599-6
  11. Science. 2020 May 08. 368(6491): 574-577
    In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough.
    Claudio Aspesi, Amy Brand.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3763
  12. BMC Med. 2020 May 07. 18(1): 104
    Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review.
    Samantha Cukier, Lucas Helal, Danielle B Rice, Justina Pupkaite, Nadera Ahmadzai, Mitchell Wilson, Becky Skidmore, Manoj M Lalu, David Moher.
       BACKGROUND: The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties.
    METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted.
    RESULTS: Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool.
    CONCLUSION: There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; Predatory publishing; Scholarly communication; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1
  13. Anaesthesist. 2020 May;69(5): 297-298
    [Publish via open access thanks to the DEAL agreement : Give your scientific articles the widest possible distribution].
    I Wolff, R Rossaint, B Zwißler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-020-00745-2
  14. Int Orthop. 2020 May 07.
    Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons?
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    Keywords:  Confidentiality; Ethics; Peer reviewer; Predatory peers; Quality control; Transparency; Trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w
  15. Med Phys. 2020 May 05.
    The open access financial model hinders the growth of medical physics research in low- and middle-income countries.
    Biplab Sarkar, Yi-Xiang Wang, Jing Cai.
      Publishing papers in journals has long been an important way to exchange ideas and propagate knowledge. Recently, open access (OA) journals have gained growing attention as they provide greater accessibility to a wider guidance. However, the difference in the financial model between the OA journals and conventional subscription journals has brought many controversies. Some think that the OA financial model can facilitate the growth of medical physics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), while others have significant concerns about financial burdens that OA can bring to potential authors will hinder medical physics research in LMICs. This is the premise debated in this month's Point/Counterpoint.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14220
  16. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020 May 05.
    A comparative study on the turnaround time of article processing in dermatology journals: A need for improvement of this aspect in Indian journals.
    Seema Manjunath, Rajsmita Bhattacharjee, T Muhammed Razmi, Tarun Narang, Keshavamurthy Vinay.
       Introduction: Submission and publishing of research articles in scientific journals is a multistep process that should be efficient and swift.
    Objective: To compare the editorial, peer review and publication time between Indian dermatology journals and international dermatology journals.
    Methods: Three Indian (Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology; Indian Journal of Dermatology and Indian Dermatology Online Journal) and three international (International Journal of Dermatology; the Australasian Journal of Dermatology and Dermatology [Karger]) dermatology journals were identified for this study. Information pertaining to time to acceptance, time to publication and the total time to publication were extracted for original articles, case reports and letters to the editor published in issues from January 2017 to December 2017.
    Results: The mean total time to publication in the order for Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Indian Dermatology Online Journal, Indian Journal of Dermatology, International Journal of Dermatology, Dermatology and Australasian Journal of Dermatology were 12.61, 12.50, 9.14, 7.92, 7.13 and 6.52 months respectively. While time to acceptance and time to publication were the longest in Indian Journal of Dermatology (7.01 months) and Indian Dermatology Online Journal (8.99 months), respectively, Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology was found to have the maximum overall total time for publication i.e. 12.61 months. The differences among the journals were found to be significant for all three time measures (P < 0.0001, ANOVA). On comparison of Indian and international journals, all three time measures were found to be higher in Indian journals (5.81 vs 4.96 months, 6.75 vs 3.59 months and 11.53 vs 7.51 months, respectively) with the differences being significant (P < 0.0001, independent samples t-test).
    Limitation: This data does not represent the performance status of rejected manuscripts, the information of which was not available in the public domain.
    Conclusion: An effective editorial screening, fast-tracked editorial and peer review process and regulation on turnover time of submissions by Indian dermatology journals are imperative in improving the impact of research publication.
    Keywords:  Dermatology; Indian; editorial review; international; journals; peer review; time to acceptance; time to publication; total time to publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_1043_18
  17. Plant Cell Rep. 2020 May 08.
    Publication impacts: more than a number.
    C Neal Stewart, Günther Hahne.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-020-02550-y
  18. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 07. 20(1): 105
    An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.
    Irbaz Hameed, Michelle Demetres, Derrick Y Tam, Mohamed Rahouma, Faiza M Khan, Drew N Wright, Keith Mages, Antonio P DeRosa, Becky Baltich Nelson, Kevin Pain, Diana Delgado, Leonard N Girardi, Stephen E Fremes, Mario Gaudino.
       BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    METHODS: 100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016-2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0-100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics' associated with quality scores.
    RESULTS: The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8-75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9-96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6-85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0-83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores.
    CONCLUSION: This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.
    Keywords:  Clinical; Cochrane; Epidemiology; IOM; Meta-analysis; Methodology; PRESS; PRISMA; Quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00999-9
  19. Nature. 2020 May;581(7806): 30
    New journal for reproduction and replication results.
    Etienne B Roesch, Nicolas Rougier.
      
    Keywords:  Education; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01328-2
  20. Nature. 2019 May 08.
    Toolkit: How to build a career in scientific publishing.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01370-9
  21. Int J Eat Disord. 2020 May 09.
    IJED support for eating disorders research in the time of COVID-19.
    Ruth S Weissman, Kelly L Klump, Tracey Wade, Jennifer J Thomas, Guido Frank, Glenn Waller.
      This editorial reports on an anonymous survey question posed to eating disorders researchers about changes the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) should implement to support the eating disorders research community affected by COVID-19. The editorial accompanies an IJED article that details responses to the larger survey focusing more broadly on COVID-19-related research disruptions. Survey invitations were sent to editorial board members of eating disorders journals, members of eating disorder scientific organizations (e.g., Eating Disorders Research Society), and individuals who provided at least three IJED reviews in the prior 12 months. We reviewed the responses of 187 participants and identified three categories of changes that: (a) had already been implemented by the journal, (b) cannot be implemented because they fall outside the scope of IJED, or (c) will be implemented in coming weeks or months. The latter category includes publishing topical COVID-19 papers, making some COVID-19-related content available open access, revising statistical guidelines, and issuing author guidance on reporting protocol changes caused by COVID-19-related disruptions. IJED recognizes the disruptive impacts that COVID-19 has on all activities in our field, including clinical work, teaching, and advocacy, and is committed to supporting authors during this difficult time while striving to publish high-quality research.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; coronavirus; eating disorders; registered report; scientific research; scientific review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23293
  22. Nature. 2019 May 08.
    Toolkit: How to work in science communication.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01359-4
  23. Clin Biochem. 2020 May 01. pii: S0009-9120(19)31201-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article.
    David Avram Sanders.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.04.006
  24. Nature. 2019 May 10.
    How the creators of a database are stamping out all-male panels.
    Virginia Gewin.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Conferences and meetings
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01500-3
  25. Nature. 2020 May 08.
    The software that powers scientific illustration.
    Jeffrey M Perkel.
      
    Keywords:  Arts; Biological techniques; Communication; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01404-7
  26. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020 May 06. e24072
    Letter to the editor in support of data sharing, with caveats.
    Thomas W McDade.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24072
  27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr 27. pii: S0895-4356(20)30345-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Lessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry (submitted).
    Farhad Shokraneh, Tony Russell-Rose.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.014
  28. Hist Psychol. 2020 May;23(2): 103-121
    Journals, referees, and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009-2014.
    Ben Harris.
      In this article, I examine the rise and fall of recent claims about the identity of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner's subject "Albert B." (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Using medical records from 1919 to 1920 and close readings of published work, I argue that articles by Beck, Fridlund, and colleagues (Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009; Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, & Irons, 2012) were based on questionable logic and selective reporting of data. Using unpublished correspondence, media coverage, and editorial exchanges, I offer a backstage look at the process by which claims about Albert's identity were published and then contradicted by new research. In publicizing both sides of this controversy, textbook authors and journalists played a more constructive role than critics of popularization might expect. Rather than a simple case of truth winning out over falsehood, this seems to have been a clash of rhetorical styles and sources of authority. That clash complicated the process of peer review, which became a negotiation over conflicting criteria from different disciplines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000087
  29. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2020 Jan;7(1): 1-3
    How to write that paper.
    Richard Villar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnaa010
  30. Clin Ther. 2020 May 01. pii: S0149-2918(20)30187-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Consider Clinical Therapeutics for Your Next Psychiatry Submission.
    Leslie Citrome.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.04.001
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.