bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–07–12
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. What a challenging beginning of the year!
  2. Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research.
  3. How the coronavirus pandemic is changing virtual science communication.
  4. "Questionable" peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: implications for policy makers and stakeholders.
  5. An 'alarming' and 'exceptionally high' rate of COVID-19 retractions?
  6. Disparities in the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on publishing: Evidence from submissions to hormones and behavior.
  7. Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods.
  8. Proposing minimum requirements for announcing clinical trial results during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  9. Pride and prejudice - What can we learn from peer review?
  10. Health Research Titles and Guidelines Improve Impact and Article Acceptance Rates.
  11. Publishing in the Time of the Coronavirus Pandemic.
  12. Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: quality, credibility and expertise.
  13. Undisclosed Conflict of Interest is Prevalent in Spine Literature.
  14. Audio Articles: The Future of Academic Publishing.
  15. Open Access for the future.
  16. Ways to increase equity, diversity and inclusion.
  1. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2020 Jul;28(1): 1
    What a challenging beginning of the year!
    Branka Marinović.
      At the beginning of the 28th year of the life of our Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica Journal, we experienced so many challenges which are quite difficult to grasp of and which nobody could predicted in advance. It all began with some vague information from Wuhan about a new virus which was spreading quickly and which eventually led to a lock-down in our country as well. We had hoped that this would not have such a big impact on the life of the Journal, in fact we hoped that may some of our potential authors would have more time to finalize their previous research and send us their manuscripts. But everything changed in the early morning on March 22 when Zagreb experienced the most devastating earthquake in the last 140 years. We lost the building of the Department of Dermatology and Venereology which was the headquarters of the Journal as well as the building of the School of Medicine University of Zagreb where the server of our Journal was situated. Like many other buildings in Zagreb, both will be unusable for a long time. After overcoming our initial shock from the earthquake, we realized that our server had broken down and we are still having significant difficulties in getting all the data out of it. All of this has resulted in a large delay in the preparation of this issue, which we hope to compensate with the hard work of the editorial board and the editorial office. We have also introduced some changes. I would like to express my great gratitude to the longstanding Editorial assistant Mrs. Gordana Dučkić who was part of the editorial team for many years and contributed a lot to the development of the Journal. I would like to welcome Mrs. Marijana Gelo who will be part of our editorial team in the future. We also have some new members of the Editorial Board, and hope to introduce some new members and other novelties during this special and challenging year. I hope you will enjoy reading articles in this issue and follow us in the future.
  2. Res Involv Engagem. 2020 ;6 38
    Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research.
    Dawn P Richards, Kathryn A Birnie, Kathleen Eubanks, Therese Lane, Delane Linkiewich, Lesley Singer, Jennifer N Stinson, Kimberly N Begley.
      The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Chronic Pain Network was founded in 2016 and is a patient-oriented research network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Network incorporates patient partners throughout its governance and operations meaning that patient partners may contribute to research projects in ways that warrant scientific authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Network did a brief informal review of guidance on patient authorship in 2019, but could not find any practical documentation to guide its members on this topic. Note the term patient partner here refers to a patient (or caregiver or other person with lived experience) who is a partner or collaborator on a research team. This guidance does not address patients as participants in a research study. This guidance has been co-written by a group of researchers and patient partners of the Chronic Pain Network in an effort to address this gap. It is intended for both researchers and patient partner audiences. This guidance is meant to facilitate conversations between researchers and patient partners about authorship and/or acknowledgement regarding research projects on which they collaborate. While the overall principles of academic authorship and acknowledgement remain unchanged, nuances for interpreting these principles through the lens of patient engagement or patient-oriented research is provided. Teams that carry out patient-oriented research projects will require different preparation to empower all team members (researchers and patient partners) to discuss authorship and acknowledgement. To facilitate these conversations, we have included an overview of the scientific publishing process, explanation of some common terms, and sets of considerations are provided for both patient partners and researchers in determining the range of team member contribution from acknowledgement to authorship. Conversations about authorship can be difficult, even for established research teams. This guidance, and the resources discussed within it, are provided with the intention of making these conversations easier and more thoughtful.
    Keywords:  Acknowledgement; Authorship; Guidance; Patient engagement; Patient involvement; Patient partner; Patient-oriented research; Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00213-6
  3. Nature. 2020 Jul 09.
    How the coronavirus pandemic is changing virtual science communication.
    Nikki Forrester.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; SARS-CoV-2
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02075-0
  4. Croat Med J. 2020 Jul 05. 61(3): 300-301
    "Questionable" peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: implications for policy makers and stakeholders.
    Francesco Chirico, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Nicola Magnavita.
      
  5. Account Res. 2020 Jul 07.
    An 'alarming' and 'exceptionally high' rate of COVID-19 retractions?
    Alison Abritis, Adam Marcus, Ivan Oransky.
      More than 20 papers about COVID-19 have been retracted at the time of this writing. It is premature, however, to conclude that such work is being retracted at higher rates than the rest of the literature.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1793675
  6. Horm Behav. 2020 Jul 02. pii: S0018-506X(20)30140-9. [Epub ahead of print] 104814
    Disparities in the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on publishing: Evidence from submissions to hormones and behavior.
    Cheryl McCormick.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104814
  7. OMICS. 2020 Jul 06.
    Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods.
    René Von Schomberg, Vural Özdemir.
      
    Keywords:  COVID-19; critical policy studies; open science; planetary public goods; responsible innovation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0118
  8. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 08. pii: ciaa945. [Epub ahead of print]
    Proposing minimum requirements for announcing clinical trial results during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Mark J Siedner, Rajesh T Gandhi.
      Recently, results from at least three major randomized clinical trials studying management of COVID-19 have been announced via press release without accompanying information. Given the unique nature of the pandemic, results of such trials often have immediate and worldwide relevance. Yet, while press releases serve the important purpose of disseminating top-level results quickly, they are inherently limited in scope, and rarely include sufficient data to inform practice. Herein, we propose a minimum set of trial characteristics and results to be released simultaneously with clinical trial announcements. This practice will ensure data related to management of COVID-19 can be used to appropriately impact care, while responding to the needs of diverse stakeholders in the scientific and publishing communities, as well as the public at large.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa945
  9. Med Teach. 2020 Jul 06. 1-7
    Pride and prejudice - What can we learn from peer review?
    Helen Le Sueur, Arianna Dagliati, Iain Buchan, Anthony D Whetton, Glen P Martin, Tim Dornan, Nophar Geifman.
      Objectives: Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process.Methods: We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues' anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics.Results: Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé.Conclusion: Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.
    Keywords:  Peer review; bias; feedback; machine learning; sentiment; subgroup discovery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1774527
  10. Arthroscopy. 2020 Jul;pii: S0749-8063(20)30371-6. [Epub ahead of print]36(7): 1779-1780
    Health Research Titles and Guidelines Improve Impact and Article Acceptance Rates.
    James H Lubowitz.
      The peer-reviewed publication of Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Techniques, and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation is the result of a team effort. Our assistant editors-in-chief are a notable part of this team who are specifically credited for, among other contributions, leadership in organizing, creating, and publishing a series of pearls, templates, and checklists for health research authors as well as reviewers, editors, and readers. These articles and tools are available under drop-down menus on the Arthroscopy journal home page. Our series of research pearls concludes with 2 articles on the weighty impact of journal article titles and on instruments to improve research publication quality.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.036
  11. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Jun 09. pii: S1701-2163(20)30479-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing in the Time of the Coronavirus Pandemic.
    Kristen Hines, Togas Tulandi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2020.06.003
  12. EFSA J. 2019 Jul;17(Suppl 1): e170702
    Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: quality, credibility and expertise.
    Massimiano Bucchi.
      What are the key challenges for science communication in the age of digital media? Are they entirely new or rather occurring in a different communicative context of longstanding issues pertaining to the credibility and reliability of information and the role of experts? Mystification for propaganda, also involving scientific content and scientists themselves, has certainly not been introduced with the internet. In a context of 'crisis of mediators', the quality of public communication of science is - even more than in the past - highly dependent on the quality of research produced and published in specialised contexts. New research is increasingly pushed in real time into the public domain without being 'filtered', as was the case in the past decades, by professional mediators and popularisers. This inevitably connects science communication at large with trends causing major concerns in the world of research policy and academic publishing: e.g. a significant rise in retractions, the emergence of 'predatory journals', and lack of and failure in replicating studies. The contemporary communicative landscape clearly places new and greater responsibility on researchers and their institutions, who are increasingly active in communication to the 'end-user' and not always prepared to deal with the dynamics and potential risks of such engagement. More in general, we could see in this landscape relevant challenges for science in society research and opportunities to rethink some of the key concepts in this area.
    Keywords:  Credibility of information; expertise; public engagement; science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170702
  13. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Jul 01.
    Undisclosed Conflict of Interest is Prevalent in Spine Literature.
    Robert T Tisherman, Richard A Wawrose, Joseph Chen, William F Donaldson, Joon Y Lee, Jeremy D Shaw.
       STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study OBJECTIVE.: To determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest(COI) disclosure within three prominent sub-specialty spine journals over a 4-year period.
    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database(OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency.
    METHODS: All research articles published from 2014-2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal(TSJ) and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine(JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded.
    RESULTS: 6,816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2,633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures. 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were under $1000 and only 7.2% were greater than $10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential conflicts of interest instead of relying on self-reporting.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003589
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jul 06.
    Audio Articles: The Future of Academic Publishing.
    Malke Asaad, Skyler M Howell, Aashish Rajesh, Nho V Tran.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007193
  15. Eng Life Sci. 2020 Jan;20(1-2): 4
    Open Access for the future.
    An-Ping Zeng, Thomas Bley, Ralf Takors, Danielle Flemming.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201900152
  16. Elife. 2020 Jul 07. pii: e60438. [Epub ahead of print]9
    Ways to increase equity, diversity and inclusion.
    Devang Mehta, Yaw Bediako, Charlotte M de Winde, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Florencia Fernández-Chiappe, Vinodh Ilangovan, Carolina Paz Quezada, Julia L Riley, Shyam M Saladi, Andy Tay, Tracey Weissgerber.
      The eLife Early-Career Advisory Group (ECAG), an international group of early-career researchers committed to improving research culture, calls for radical changes at eLife and other journals to address racism in the scientific community and to make science more diverse and inclusive.
    Keywords:  diversity and inclusion; early-career researchers; equity; peer review; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60438
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.