bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒07‒05
eleven papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.
  2. When are researchers willing to share their data? - Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia.
  3. A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations.
  4. Acknowledging personal biases in otolaryngology manuscript selection.
  5. Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles.
  6. Academic Writing, and How to Learn How to Write.
  7. How to Write a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips, Traps - Part I.
  8. Status of Editing and Publishing of Scholarly Journals by Academic Societies of Science and Technology in Korea.
  9. Scientific publishing in the COVID-19 era: successes and pitfalls.
  10. Editorial: Publishing in the Time of Pandemic: Editorial Policy of a Dermatology Journal During COVID-19.
  11. Publier en contexte de pandémie de COVID-19.
  1. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 ;5 8
    Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.
    Lonni Besançon, Niklas Rönnberg, Jonas Löwgren, Jonathan P Tennant, Matthew Cooper.
      Background: Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields.Methods: We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions.
    Results: Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.
    Conclusion: While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.
    Keywords:  Open science; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
  2. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(7): e0234172
    When are researchers willing to share their data? - Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia.
    Stefan Stieglitz, Konstantin Wilms, Milad Mirbabaie, Lennart Hofeditz, Bela Brenger, Ania López, Stephanie Rehwald.
      BACKGROUND: E-science technologies have significantly increased the availability of data. Research grant providers such as the European Union increasingly require open access publishing of research results and data. However, despite its significance to research, the adoption rate of open data technology remains low across all disciplines, especially in Europe where research has primarily focused on technical solutions (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework) or considered only parts of the issue.METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this study, we emphasized the non-technical factors perceived value and uncertainty factors in the context of academia, which impact researchers' acceptance of open data-the idea that researchers should not only publish their findings in the form of articles or reports, but also share the corresponding raw data sets. We present the results of a broad quantitative analysis including N = 995 researchers from 13 large to medium-sized universities in Germany. In order to test 11 hypotheses regarding researchers' intentions to share their data, as well as detect any hierarchical or disciplinary differences, we employed a structured equation model (SEM) following the partial least squares (PLS) modeling approach.
    CONCLUSIONS: Grounded in the value-based theory, this article proclaims that most individuals in academia embrace open data when the perceived advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, uncertainty factors impact the perceived value (consisting of the perceived advantages and disadvantages) of sharing research data. We found that researchers' assumptions about effort required during the data preparation process were diminished by awareness of e-science technologies (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework), which also increased their tendency to perceive personal benefits via data exchange. Uncertainty factors seem to influence the intention to share data. Effects differ between disciplines and hierarchical levels.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234172
  3. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(7): e0234912
    A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations.
    P Sage Anderson, Aubrey R Odom, Hunter M Gray, Jordan B Jones, William F Christensen, Todd Hollingshead, Joseph G Hadfield, Alyssa Evans-Pickett, Megan Frost, Christopher Wilson, Lance E Davidson, Matthew K Seeley.
      The association between mention of scientific research in popular media (e.g., the mainstream media or social media platforms) and scientific impact (e.g., citations) has yet to be fully explored. The purpose of this study was to clarify this relationship, while accounting for some other factors that likely influence scientific impact (e.g., the reputations of the scientists conducting the research and academic journal in which the research was published). To accomplish this purpose, approximately 800 peer-reviewed articles describing original research were evaluated for scientific impact, popular media attention, and reputations of the scientists/authors and publication venue. A structural equation model was produced describing the relationship between non-scientific impact (popular media) and scientific impact (citations), while accounting for author/scientist and journal reputation. The resulting model revealed a strong association between the amount of popular media attention given to a scientific research project and corresponding publication and the number of times that publication is cited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. These results indicate that (1) peer-reviewed scientific publications receiving more attention in non-scientific media are more likely to be cited than scientific publications receiving less popular media attention, and (2) the non-scientific media is associated with the scientific agenda. These results may inform scientists who increasingly use popular media to inform the general public and scientists concerning their scientific work. These results might also inform administrators of higher education and research funding mechanisms, who base decisions partly on scientific impact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234912
  4. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020 Jun 30.
    Acknowledging personal biases in otolaryngology manuscript selection.
    William James Moss.
      Try as we might to make the manuscript selection process as objective as possible, the crapshoot element is unquestionable. Prospective papers are being submitted more frequently than ever, which has broadened the number of reviewers. Medical students and senior faculty alike are being tasked with assessing manuscripts. Different levels of experience, knowledge and variable personal research interests introduce undeniable biases in how papers are ultimately critiqued.
    Keywords:  manuscript selection; otolaryngology journals; risk of bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13602
  5. Account Res. 2020 Jun 30. 1-21
    Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles.
    Nicole A Vasilevsky, Mohammad Hosseini, Samantha Teplitzky, Violeta Ilik, Ehsan Mohammadi, Juliane Schneider, Barbara Kern, Julien Colomb, Scott C Edmunds, Karen Gutzman, Daniel S Himmelstein, Marijane White, Britton Smith, Lisa O'Keefe, Melissa Haendel, Kristi L Holmes.
      Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.
    Keywords:  Attribution; authorship; contributorship; peer review; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591
  6. J Grad Med Educ. 2020 Jun;12(3): 373-374
    Academic Writing, and How to Learn How to Write.
    Marcin Kozak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00154.1
  7. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2020 May-Jun;115(3):pii: 3. [Epub ahead of print]115(3): 314-322
    How to Write a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips, Traps - Part I.
    Florin Botea, Irinel Popescu.
      One of the main goals of clinicians is to constantly improve the healthcare by spreading their expertise and by introducing innovations in medical science. Therefore, publishing is of utmost importance. Moreover, publishing helps authors in developing their academic carrier. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. The aim of the current paper, published in 3 parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively.
    Keywords:  clinicalpaper; scientificarticle; writingskills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.115.3.314
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun 29. 35(25): e208
    Status of Editing and Publishing of Scholarly Journals by Academic Societies of Science and Technology in Korea.
    Sung Tae Hong, Ho Shik Youn.
      BACKGROUND: The present study analyzed publishing data of scholarly journals which were published in 2018 by academic societies of science and technology in Korea to observe journal editing and publishing status.METHODS: A total of 346 regional journals (59 natural science, 118 engineering, 44 agriculture, fisheries, and oceanography, and 125 medical and pharmacy) and 141 international journals (32 natural science, 43 engineering, 12 agriculture, fisheries, and oceanography, 54 medical and pharmacy) were included in this analysis, which applied the journal review by the Korea Federation of Science and Technology. Websites of the journals and the submitted publication data in 2019 were reviewed.
    RESULTS: Except for a few journals, all of the journals were published by academic societies. Basic information of journals was well displayed by both offline and online. Most of the 346 regional journals were published in Korean language or mixed with English but 77 (22.3%), mostly medical, were in English. One-third (n = 104) journals published less than 40 articles while 9 published over 200, and 261 journals (75.4%) received less than 100 submissions in 2018. Most (n = 298, 86.1%) of them were enlisted in the Korean Citation Index (KCI). Editorial board members performed manuscript editing in 171 (49.4%) journals, and most of the journals paid < 50,000,000 won for publishing costs. Of 141 international journals, 138 (97.9%) were published in English and all of them published overseas submissions. Forty-one (29.1%) journals accepted < 20% of submissions but 58 (41.1%) accepted 100%. Of them, 124 (87.9%) were indexed in the KCI, 93 (66.0%) in the Web of Science, 120 in Scopus, and 62 in PubMed. Editorial board members in 38 (27.0%) journals took responsibility of manuscript editing. Publishing cost of 79 (56.0%) journals was < 50,000,000 won. Only 157 (32.2%) of total 487 journals, mostly medical, documented gendered innovation in their instruction to authors.
    CONCLUSION: Most of the Korean science and technology journals keep global standard of editing and publishing. Their offline and online visibility is acceptable but most regional journals are small and of low academic impact while international journals are globally indexed and acknowledged. Korean scholarly journals should invite more and better articles to keep quality publication.
    Keywords:  International; Korean Academic Society; Regional; Scholarly Journal; Science and Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e208
  9. Neurol Sci. 2020 Jul 02.
    Scientific publishing in the COVID-19 era: successes and pitfalls.
    Antonio Federico.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04550-y
  10. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020 Jun 22.
    Editorial: Publishing in the Time of Pandemic: Editorial Policy of a Dermatology Journal During COVID-19.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.287444
  11. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Jun 09. pii: S1701-2163(20)30480-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publier en contexte de pandémie de COVID-19.
    Kristen Hines, Togas Tulandi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2020.06.004
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:24.