bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–06–21
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Evolving our support for early sharing.
  2. Journals as communities of practice.
  3. Reluctance to Cite our Peers in articles: Story of Academic Betrayals.
  4. Peer Review: It Should Be an Honorary Process.
  5. Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation.
  6. Unravelling the mysteries of preprints and peer review.
  7. Publication misconducts related to copyright: tread carefully to avoid falling.
  8. Copyright violation of predators in scientific publishing - Biochemia Medica's harmful experience and proposed solution.
  9. If case reports be the food of knowledge, write on: our Cases of the Quarter.
  10. Comment on: "Predatory journal preference in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology in Turkey".
  11. Publishing in the COVID Era.
  12. An Assessment of Predatory Publication Use in Reviews.
  13. Visual Abstracts: Redesigning the Landscape of Research Dissemination.
  14. Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations.
  15. Prejudice in science - Lessons from the coronavirus story.
  16. Diversity in addiction publishing.
  17. PubMed Central archiving: a major milestone for a scholarly journal.
  18. Twitter-Based Journal Clubs: Bringing Critical Appraisal to the Social Table.
  19. JTEHM: The EMB Journey to Open Access.
  1. Nat Commun. 2020 Jun 15. 11(1): 2959
    Evolving our support for early sharing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16788-3
  2. Biointerphases. 2020 Jun 16. 15(3): 030201
    Journals as communities of practice.
    Sally L McArthur.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1116/6.0000348
  3. J Orthop Case Rep. 2019 ;9(5): 1-2
    Reluctance to Cite our Peers in articles: Story of Academic Betrayals.
    Ashok Shyam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.1504
  4. Ann Surg. 2020 Jul;272(1): 44
    Peer Review: It Should Be an Honorary Process.
    Michael G Sarr.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003952
  5. Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7812): 314
    Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Peer review; Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z
  6. Nature. 2019 Jun 18.
    Unravelling the mysteries of preprints and peer review.
    Chris Woolston.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01947-4
  7. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020 03;50(1): 3-5
    Publication misconducts related to copyright: tread carefully to avoid falling.
    Durga Prasanna Misra, Vinod Ravindran.
      
    Keywords:  duplicate publication; ethics; medical writing; plagiarism; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2020.101
  8. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2020 Jun 15. 30(2): 020201
    Copyright violation of predators in scientific publishing - Biochemia Medica's harmful experience and proposed solution.
    Daria Pašalić, Vesna Šupak Smolčić.
      Biochemia Medica is an open access journal that does not charge manuscript processing or publishing. All editorial staff are continuously educated and directed to follow the highest ethical and scholarly publishing standards in all steps of the manuscript processing. They are all laboratory medicine professionals, who apart from their regular jobs, are in charge of different phases in Journal processing as volunteers. The publisher of the Journal is scientific and professional association of laboratory medicine professionals, Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory medicine (CSMBLM). During November and December 2018, without knowledge of the editorial staff, unknown perpetrator(s) downloaded a respectable number of articles published in Biochemia Medica as PDF and launched an illegal web page under the same journal name with downloaded articles. Although this was a very harmful experience, we have learned a lot from it and we would like to share this with scientific journals' community. Therefore, we would like to share this harmful experience, and to present a short workflow on how to manage situations like this if it will be necessary for any scientific journal in the future.
    Keywords:  copyright violation; cybercriminal; predatory journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2020.020201
  9. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020 Mar;50(1): 75-79
    If case reports be the food of knowledge, write on: our Cases of the Quarter.
    Stefan Slater.
      The value of publishing case reports has long been debated and the arguments are summarised. Last year, to encourage trainees, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh's Senior Fellows Club inaugurated an annual prize for the best case report or case series published in the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh by a doctor in training. Some of the highlights of last year's entries are reviewed, commented on and developed. They include cases of myelofibrosis and cherubism due to secondary hyperparathyroidism from renal failure; reversible blindness in diabetic ketoacidosis; the long QT syndrome; ictal asystole; giant cell arteritis; tumour necrosis factor-α inhibition in Lyme borreliosis; and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.
    Keywords:  borreliosis; cyclical vomiting; diabetic ketoacidosis; giant cell arteritis; hyperparathyroidism; journal case reports; transient loss of consciousness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2020.120
  10. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020 May;54(3): 353-354
    Comment on: "Predatory journal preference in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology in Turkey".
    Fahmi H Kakamad, Suhaib H Kakamad, Abdulwahid M Salih.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2020.03.53
  11. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020 May;4(4): 438
    Publishing in the COVID Era.
    Mary Cushman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12341
  12. Clin Nurse Spec. 2020 Jul/Aug;34(4):34(4): 152-156
    An Assessment of Predatory Publication Use in Reviews.
    Charles D Collom, Marilyn H Oermann, Valerie K Sabol, Phyllis A Heintz.
       PURPOSE/AIMS: Predatory journals, characterized by poor editorial practices and questionable peer review, constitute a threat to academic literature. Citations to predatory journals in reviews of research potentially weaken the strength of these reviews, which are relied upon by nurses as evidence for practice. The purposes of this study were to assess the (a) extent to which reviews have relied on articles published in predatory journals, (b) nursing research practice areas most reliant on predatory journal citations, and (c) extent to which predatory journal citations are being used in reviews that guide the care of sensitive or vulnerable groups.
    METHODS: Literature and other types of reviews with 1 or more citations to a predatory journal (n = 78) were assessed. The reviews were classified by topic (clinical practice, education, and management).
    RESULTS: The 78 reviews contained 275 citations to articles published in predatory journals; 51 reviews (65%) substantively used these references.
    CONCLUSIONS: Predatory journal articles, which may not have been subjected to an adequate peer review, are being cited in review articles published in legitimate nursing journals, weakening the strength of these reviews as evidence for practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000530
  13. Semin Nephrol. 2020 May;pii: S0270-9295(20)30049-8. [Epub ahead of print]40(3): 291-297
    Visual Abstracts: Redesigning the Landscape of Research Dissemination.
    Everly Ramos, Beatrice P Concepcion.
      A visual abstract is a graphic summary of a study designed to enable readers to process key methods, findings, and conclusions rapidly. This allows readers to preview the article and decide if it is worth pursuing further. Similar to the text abstract, it is not a substitute for reading the full article. Its succinct format and attractive design make a visual abstract ideal for sharing on social media, thereby allowing journals and authors to promote published articles, and to facilitate discussion through tweets, blog posts, journal clubs, and scientific meetings. Guidelines for creating a visual abstract are available, but maintaining an acceptable standard remains a challenge. Visual abstract editors may be helpful in ensuring quality.
    Keywords:  Twitter; Visual abstract; medical education; research dissemination; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2020.04.008
  14. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Jun 18.
    Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations.
    Mikkel Zola Andersen, Siv Fonnes, Kristoffer Andresen, Jacob Rosenberg.
       OBJECTIVE: Recently, group authorships have become more common. Group authorship describes a situation where the name of a group of people is included in the byline of an article. Historically, however, group authorships have been associated with citation errors and difficulties identifying who could be regarded as an author. Cochrane is a collaboration that publishes high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses and transparency in authorship should be high. Group authorships in Cochrane have not previously been examined. This study aimed to describe group authorships in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
    METHODS: In total, 8396 reviews from the CDSR were screened for group authorships from inception to 31 December 2019. Data from group authorships were extracted and analyzed.
    RESULTS: A total of 41 reviews with group authorships were included. Almost half of group authorships (46%, 19/41) were published from 2015 to 2019. Median number of group members was 32 (range 6-91). Median publication time (protocol to review) of group authorships was 3.1 years. Of all group authorships, 39% met ICMJE's first authorship criterion, 41% met the second, and 12% met the third criterion. For only two studies all authors met the three authorship criteria.
    CONCLUSION: A low prevalence of group authorships existed in Cochrane reviews. Reviews with group authorships took median three years to publish, and very few of group authorships in Cochrane complied with the ICMJE authorship criteria.
    Keywords:  Cochrane; Cochrane review; authorship; group authorship; methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12396
  15. Phys Med. 2020 Jun 10. pii: S1120-1797(20)30144-7. [Epub ahead of print]75 83-84
    Prejudice in science - Lessons from the coronavirus story.
    Kwan Hoong Ng, Eva Bezak.
      In the current pandemic times, medical physicists may not be aware that there is an interesting story on two significant discoveries related to the coronavirus. One is the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the other is the first electron microscopic observation and identification of the coronavirus. Both of them were disregarded by the reviewers and major journals declined to publish these discoveries. These days, PCR, for example, is a widespread method for analyzing DNA, having a profound effect on healthcare, especially now during the Covid-19 pandemic. Prejudice or perhaps ignorance prevail in every aspect of our society, and there is no exception in scientific research. We need to, however, learn from these two stories and be open-minded about novel discoveries and findings - as they may be just disruptive in the "right" way to lead to an unexpected breakthrough.
    Keywords:  Coronavirus; Disruptive research; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.06.011
  16. Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Jun 13. pii: S0955-3959(20)30129-8. [Epub ahead of print]82 102788
    Diversity in addiction publishing.
    Hellman Matilda, Kauppila Emmi, Katainen Anu, Kettunen Tom, Saitz Richard, Calver Katherine.
      With the aim of investigating diversity in the addiction journal publishing field, information about 41 peer-reviewed addiction journals and their total content for the year 2018 were collected. Quantitative and qualitative content analytical methods were employed to map geographic and gender representation among authors and editors as well as the level of epistemic heterogeneity in terms of the share of qualitative research publications. Affiliations among authors and editors showed an overwhelming US and Anglophone dominance. Representation of low-income countries was close to zero, there was also a negligible number of author and editor affiliations in middle income countries. Editors-in-chief were mostly male (80 %). Claims of applicability and closeness to a use context were expressed as important for all journals in their declarations of scope and aims. The study concludes with encouraging journals in the addiction field to build up strategies to deal with lack of heterogeneity. There are good existing cooperation networks and peer support to do so.
    Keywords:  Addiction Publishing; Editorial Boards; Gender gap; Geographical affiliation; Journal Authors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102788
  17. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 2020 Mar;31(1): 3-5
    PubMed Central archiving: a major milestone for a scholarly journal.
    Armen Yuri Gasparyan, George D Kitas.
      
    Keywords:  PubMed; PubMed Central; open access; periodicals as topic; publishing; quality control; rheumatology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.31.1.3
  18. Semin Nephrol. 2020 May;pii: S0270-9295(20)30045-0. [Epub ahead of print]40(3): 264-272
    Twitter-Based Journal Clubs: Bringing Critical Appraisal to the Social Table.
    Sinead Stoneman, Swapnil Hiremath.
      Journal clubs have existed since William Osler started them in the 19th century, and serve as an important avenue for critical appraisal of medical research in academia. In the past decade, particularly the past 5 years, there has been a proliferation of online journal clubs on Twitter (Twitter Inc, San Francisco, CA). These Twitter-based journal clubs have used the conversational nature of the medium and the focus allowed by specifying a hashtag to bring critical appraisal to the wider community. Currently, there are 27 active Twitter-based journal clubs. NephJC is one such online, Twitter-based, nephrology-focused journal club. NephJC has been active since April 2014. We describe elements of NephJC and the participation over the past 135 sessions. Apart from critical appraisal, these journal clubs allow for archived and searchable postpublication peer-review, and are a crucial element of building an online community. They are one of the myriad ways in which social media is changing medicine and medical education.
    Keywords:  Twitter; critical appraisal; journal club; medical education; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2020.04.004
  19. IEEE Pulse. 2020 May-Jun;11(3):11(3): 35-37
    JTEHM: The EMB Journey to Open Access.
    Pamela Bhatti, Kara McArthur.
      The ultimate goal of engineering in medicine and biology (EMB) researchers is to improve medical care for patients and communities all over the world by providing a collaborative environment for engineer-scientists and clinicians. In order for this collaboration to occur, however, there must be a widely indexed platform that promotes communication among researchers across a spectrum of nations, both economically developed and underdeveloped, and between engineer-scientists and clinicians who are less likely to have access to IEEE Xplore. In response to this need, the EMB Society (EMBS) created the Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine (JTEHM), its first Gold Open Access (OA) journal. At its inception in 2012, JTEHM outlined a bold, comprehensive objective: Our unique mission-to bring together scientific researchers, practicing clinicians, and engineers to develop actionable, practical solutions for patients, families, and caregivers-requires open communication and free access.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/MPULS.2020.2995437
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.