bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020–11–08
24 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Fairness and transparency in medical journals.
  2. If I tweet will you cite later? Follow-up on the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.
  3. Panic publishing: An unwarranted consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. Opening up Peer Review.
  5. Reduced standards of scientific reporting in the COVID-19 pandemic?
  6. How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities.
  7. Understanding of medical students about predatory journals: A comparative study from KSA and New Zealand.
  8. Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note.
  9. Do journals and corporate sponsors back certain views in topics where disagreement prevails?
  10. Is the English language a barrier to the non-English-speaking authors in academic publishing?
  11. Is clinical expertise a conflict of interest in research?
  12. Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.
  13. THE GROWTH IN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION.
  14. Journal indexing: Myths and facts.
  15. Covering science: The history of Nature's front page.
  16. A network of science: 150 years of Nature papers.
  17. Diversity, equity, and inclusion in publishing: Calling thrombosis and hemostasis journals to action in support of women.
  18. New journal authorship criteria: how ecancermedicalscience is supporting authors and readers from underserved settings.
  19. How to Submit a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips and Traps - Part III.
  20. Publishing Ethics and Misconduct in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional: Radiology: An Editor's Perspective.
  21. Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Animal Bioscience.
  22. Vaccine Hesitancy in the Age of Coronavirus and Fake News: Analysis of Journalistic Sources in the Spanish Quality Press.
  23. Announcement of conversion of Journal of Synchrotron Radiation to 100% open access from January 2022.
  24. On the shoulders of giants.
  1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Nov 03. pii: S0190-9622(20)32839-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Fairness and transparency in medical journals.
    Dirk M Elston.
      
    Keywords:  conflict of interest; double-blind review; ethics; peer review; scholarly publishing; single-blind review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.027
  2. Int J Public Health. 2020 Nov 07.
    If I tweet will you cite later? Follow-up on the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.
    Thomy Tonia, Herman Van Oyen, Anke Berger, Christian Schindler, Nino Künzli.
       OBJECTIVES: We previously reported that random assignment of scientific articles to a social media exposure intervention did not have an effect on article downloads and citations. In this paper, we investigate whether longer observation time after exposure to a social media intervention has altered the previously reported results.
    METHODS: For articles published in the International Journal of Public Health between December 2012 and December 2014, we updated article download and citation data for a minimum of 24-month follow-up. We re-analysed the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.
    RESULTS: There was no difference between intervention and control group in terms of downloads (p = 0.72) and citations (p= 0.30) for all papers and when we stratified by open access status.
    CONCLUSIONS: Longer observation time did not increase the relative differences in the numbers of downloads and citations between papers in the social media intervention group and papers in the control group. Traditional impact metrics based on citations, such as impact factor, may not capture the added value of social media for scientific publications.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citations; Downloads; Facebook; Social media; Twitter
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01519-8
  3. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Oct 22. pii: S0165-1781(20)33186-3. [Epub ahead of print]294 113525
    Panic publishing: An unwarranted consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Arpit Parmar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113525
  4. Genetics. 2020 Nov;216(3): 619-620
    Opening up Peer Review.
    Tracey A DePellegrin, Mark Johnston.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.120.303727
  5. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2020 Nov 04.
    Reduced standards of scientific reporting in the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Claudia Stöllberger, Josef Finsterer, Birke Schneider.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4725.20.05443-2
  6. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Nov 03. pii: S1364-6613(20)30249-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities.
    Daniel S Quintana, James A J Heathers.
      Podcasts are emerging as popular fora for discussing science. Here, we describe how podcasts can benefit scientific communities by disseminating career-specific information that is often unwritten and hidden to those outside academic social knowledge networks. We also provide practical advice on how scientists can launch their own podcasts.
    Keywords:  podcasts; science communication; scientific life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.003
  7. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2020 Oct;15(5): 339-343
    Understanding of medical students about predatory journals: A comparative study from KSA and New Zealand.
    Yassar Alamri, Ibrahim S Al-Busaidi, Marwah G Bintalib, Ahmed Abu-Zaid.
       Objective: This study examines the extent of understanding of medical students from KSA and New Zealand (NZ) about predatory journals.
    Methods: From March to July 2019, self-administered questionnaires were sent to fourth- and fifth-year students of two medical schools in KSA and NZ. Between-group comparisons were carried out using the two-sided Student's t test and the Chi-square test. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value <0.05.
    Results: A total of 263 students completed the questionnaire (response rate: 59.1 percent KSA; 31 percent NZ). Prior research experience was significantly higher among KSA students (56.6 percent) as compared to NZ students (32.3 percent; p = 0.0006). A significantly higher number of KSA students (75.6 percent) felt that they were under pressure to publish studies during their term at medical school as compared to only 12.3 percent of NZ medical students (p < 0.0001). While one-third of the students in both countries were familiar with 'open-access publishing' (30.8 percent KSA versus 42.2 percent NZ), only a few displayed awareness about 'predatory journals' (9.1 percent KSA versus 7.8 percent NZ; p = 0.7) or 'Beall's list' (2.5 percent KSA versus 0 percent NZ; p = 0.02). A small number of students from both countries had published in predatory journals (26.1 percent [n = 6/23] KSA versus 12.5 percent [n = 1/8] NZ, p = 0.4). A few students had received warnings or advice regarding predatory journals (4.5 percent KSA versus 1.5 percent NZ; p = 0.2). A majority of respondents from both the countries found it hard to identify predatory journals.
    Conclusion: This study identified that the understanding and knowledge of medical students regarding predatory journals is rather poor. This indicates that curricular, extracurricular, and institutional measures to promote awareness about predatory journals are warranted.
    Keywords:  KSA; Medical students; New Zealand; Predatory journals; Understanding
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.07.010
  8. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Oct 29. pii: S1877-0568(20)30292-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note.
    Julien Dartus, Marc Saab, Pierre Martinot, Sophie Putman, Roger Erivan, Patrick Devos.
       BACKGROUND: France ranks 9th worldwide for scientific publication in orthopedics and the increase in both the quantity and the quality of its scientific production has been described in detail. On the other hand, publishing by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals is more obscure. The journals in question are difficult to identify but are based on an open-access model with article processing charges (APC), except in rare cases that are difficult to specify, as they are not stated at the time of submission. The increase in the number of predatory journals over the last 10 years led us to attempt to assess the rate at which French orthopedic surgeons publish in them, as revealed by investigation of the SIGAPS bibliometric database.
    HYPOTHESIS: Over the period 2008-2017, the rate of publications by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals was less than 5%.
    MATERIAL AND METHOD: The SIGAPS database contains the detail of publications by French orthopedic surgeons members of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and was used to analyse all such articles (journal article, review or editorial) so as to isolate articles with PubMed-Not-MEDLINE status falling in the SIGAPS non-classified (NC) category and to determine the predatory status of the journal using established lists, such as Beall's list or that drawn up by StopPredatoryJournals. In case of difficulty in determining predatory status, we applied the criteria defined by Beall and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
    RESULTS: Out of 6056 articles in the SIGAPS database published by French orthopedic surgeons between 2008 and 2017, 323 could be suspected of being published in a predatory journal, but only 33 were so confirmed: i.e., 0.55% of French orthopedic scientific output over the study period. Eleven appeared in journals whose publishers were listed as predatory by Beall, 21 appeared in journals whose publishers had been listed as predatory on Beall's list in 2012 with the dubious editorial practices defined by Beall, and one article appeared in a journal found to be predatory on analysis of its editorial board. More than half of these articles (58%) were subject to APCs averaging $400.
    DISCUSSION: Despite a strong increase in the number of predatory journals over the last decade, very few French orthopedic surgeons resort to them to publish their work. Difficulty of identification and authors' lack of knowledge about this type of journals may account for some of these submissions. Scientific teams need to check certain criteria before submitting to a journal: short time to publication and low APC should be taken as warning signs, and any demand for payment after acceptance certainly raises the question of the journal's predatory nature.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study without control group.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; France; Impact factor; Predatory journal; Scientific literature
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.03.042
  9. Scientometrics. 2020 Oct 29. 1-27
    Do journals and corporate sponsors back certain views in topics where disagreement prevails?
    Peter Ingwersen, Soeren Holm, Birger Larsen, Thomas Ploug.
      The article focuses on scientific disagreement about the use of statin-related drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular events. The study forms part of an exploration of the broader principle of research polarization, foremost in medicine. The hypothesis is that statin-positive and statin-critical researchers publish in different committed central journals, and that they are financially supported by different dedicated corporate sources. Methodologically we use Web of Science (WoS) analytic tools to perform publication analysis of a time series covering 1998-2018 in three seven-year windows. For each window data is captured based on sets of known statin-positive and statin-critical articles and researchers, and their primary and secondary co-authors. Standard deviation is used as a focused normalization and visual instrument together with Spearman's correlation coefficient in order to compare frequency distributions of statin-positive and critical journal and sponsor articles. Z-test p-values are used to assess the probability of error concerning the distributions. Findings at general topical level showed that a few journals consistently and significantly occupied top positions, 2 of which, American Journal of Cardiology and Circulation, published articles from both positions. Besides, Journal of the American College of Cardiology served as a major publisher of statin-positive research from 2005, as did European Heart Journal from 2012, replacing American Journal of Cardiology at the top. From 2012 Atherosclerosis and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology served as top-publishers of statin-critical articles. Two central US funding agencies, US Department of Health Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH), operated at general topical level across the time series, but the agencies played only a minor role in the divergent research positions. From 2005 statin-positive as well as statin-critical research was mainly sponsored by multinational pharmaceutical companies, predominantly Merck, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. In conclusion, the initial hypothesis about dedicated journals and sponsors was entirely substantiated at the general topical level and at the journal level of research disagreement, but not at sponsor level. Distinct dedicated journals were extracted separately from the 2 divergent statin positions. Since the WoS coverage of sponsor data 1998-2004 was sporadic sponsor data are analyzed from 2005. Only from 2012 the WoS sponsor coverage of the topic is consistently at 60%.
    Keywords:  Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular events; Frequency distributions; Publication analysis; Research disagreement; Scientometric analysis; Simvastatin; Statin critical journals; Statin positive journals; Statin sponsors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03743-8
  10. Postgrad Med J. 2020 Nov 06. pii: postgradmedj-2020-139243. [Epub ahead of print]
    Is the English language a barrier to the non-English-speaking authors in academic publishing?
    Vijay Kumar Jain, Karthikeyan P Iyengar, Raju Vaishya.
      
    Keywords:  Education & training (see medical education & training); health policy; health services administration & management; organisational development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139243
  11. Womens Health (Lond). 2020 Jan-Dec;16:16 1745506520969616
    Is clinical expertise a conflict of interest in research?
    Sara Neill, Lisa Martin, Lisa Harris.
       PURPOSE: Doctors who research and provide abortion care have had their work characterized as a conflict of interest. We investigated whether surgeons who perform medical procedures other than abortion also routinely conduct research on that procedure and whether they disclose this as a relevant "conflict of interest."
    METHOD: We conducted a two-step literature review of five medical procedures-abortion, rhinoplasty, Mohs micrographic surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, and laminectomy. We identified articles published between June 2011 and May 2012, and we calculated the proportion of articles authored by clinicians who also perform that procedure as well as the percentage that reported clinical care as a conflict of interest. We then screened conflict of interest statements on publications on said procedures from the same journals between 2012 and 2019 and calculated the proportion of publications that reported clinical work as a conflict of interest.
    RESULTS: We identified 135 publications that met inclusion criteria. We calculated that 100% of publications on rhinoplasty, transurethral resection of the prostate, and Mohs included a clinician who performs that procedure. Seventy-five percent of publications on laminectomy and 78% of publications on abortion included a clinician. None of the reviewed research articles included a disclosure that the authors also performed the procedure. From 2012 to 2019, there were 1,903 published articles on these procedures. None included a conflict of interest that disclosed clinical work as a conflict of interest.
    CONCLUSION: Although abortion providers publish as clinician-researchers at rates similar to surgeons in other areas of medicine, they alone face accusations that their clinical expertise is a potential conflict of interest. This stigmatizing practice could have wide-ranging consequences including delegitimization of the scientific method and peer review process broadly.
    Keywords:  Mohs; abortion; academic medicine; authorship; clinical experience; gynecology; laminectomy; rhinoplasty; stigma; transurethral resection of the prostate
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745506520969616
  12. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Nov 04.
    Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.
    Negin Kamali, Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi, Farid Rahimi.
      Retractions of scientific papers published by some Iran-affiliated scientists in the preceding decade have attracted much attention and publicity; however, the reasons for these retractions have not been documented. We searched the Retraction Watch Database to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and aimed to outline the predominant reasons for retractions. The reasons included fake peer-review, authorship dispute, fabricated data, plagiarism, conflict of interest, erroneous data, and duplication. The Fisher's exact test was used to investigate the associations between retractions and their underlying reasons. We selected P < 0.05 to indicate the statistically significant differences. We found 697 retracted papers. Duplication (27%), plagiarism (26%), and fake peer-review (21%) were the most frequent reasons for retractions. Our study highlights the importance of urgent intervention to prevent the misconduct and questionable research practices that lead to retractions in Iran. Continually educating the scientists and postgraduate students about the ethics and norms of scientific publishing is an important measure to ensure publication of reliable, worthy, and impactful papers.
    Keywords:  Duplication; Ethics in publishing; Fake peer-review; Iran; Manuscript; Retraction of publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6
  13. Acta Ortop Bras. 2020 Sep-Oct;28(5):28(5): 211
    THE GROWTH IN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION.
    Olavo Pires de Camargo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-785220202805011223
  14. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2020 Oct-Dec;63(4):63(4): 515-517
    Journal indexing: Myths and facts.
    Ranjan Agrawal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_1265_20
  15. Nature. 2019 Nov 07.
    Covering science: The history of Nature's front page.
    Kelly Krause, Dan Fox.
      
    Keywords:  History; Media; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03442-2
  16. Nature. 2019 Nov 06.
    A network of science: 150 years of Nature papers.
    Noah Baker.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community; Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03325-6
  17. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020 Oct;4(7): 1076-1079
    Diversity, equity, and inclusion in publishing: Calling thrombosis and hemostasis journals to action in support of women.
    Elizabeth C Pendlebury, Mary Cushman.
      
    Keywords:  authorship; diversity in STEM; gender; peer review; thrombosis and hemostasis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12434
  18. Ecancermedicalscience. 2020 ;14 ed106
    New journal authorship criteria: how ecancermedicalscience is supporting authors and readers from underserved settings.
    Eduardo Cazap, Richard Sullivan, Katie Foxall.
      In order to reduce the increasing cancer burden in Lower and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), oncology journals must support authors from underserved settings to become fully involved in the global publication system, without facing barriers to publishing their research such as geographical bias and lack of funding. ecancermedicalscience's goal has always been to publish high-quality research which contributes towards narrowing the gap between those who have access to adequate cancer prevention, treatment and care and those who do not. The time is now right for the journal to take new steps in proactively supporting authors from LMICs and the global partnerships that are vital to increasing the availability of resource-appropriate data. With this in mind, ecancermedicalscience will only be accepting submissions which feature at least one author from an LMIC, or which have a significant impact on under-resourced settings.
    Keywords:  LMICs; global health and cancer; open access publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2020.ed106
  19. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2020 Sept-Oct;115(5):pii: 1. [Epub ahead of print]115(5): 554-562
    How to Submit a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips and Traps - Part III.
    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. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. The aim of this paper, published in three parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively; the current part is addressing the actual writing workflow of a clinical paper and its submission process to a journal.
    Keywords:  clinicalpaper; scientificarticle; writingskills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.115.5.554
  20. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020 Nov;pii: S1051-0443(20)30812-5. [Epub ahead of print]31(11): 1792-1794
    Publishing Ethics and Misconduct in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional: Radiology: An Editor's Perspective.
    Ziv J Haskal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.09.026
  21. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020 Oct 14.
    Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Animal Bioscience.
    Ah Reum Son, Beob Gyun Kim.
      The objective of this editorial is to present standard guidelines in a peer review process for reviewers. The editorial contains acceptance of invitation, review process, decision for manuscripts, and confidentiality. In addition, this editorial also helps authors publication in Animal Bioscience. This editorial does not aim to provide immutable guidelines for reviewing, however, it can assist reviewers with appropriate and effective ways.
    Keywords:  .
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.20.0361
  22. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 04. pii: E8136. [Epub ahead of print]17(21):
    Vaccine Hesitancy in the Age of Coronavirus and Fake News: Analysis of Journalistic Sources in the Spanish Quality Press.
    Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Carlos Elías.
      The study of the quality press and the use of sources is relevant to understand the role of journalists in scientific controversies. The objective was to examine media sourcing patterns, using the case of vaccines as a backdrop. Articles were retrieved from the national quality press in Spain. Content analysis was undertaken on the sources and on other variables such as tone, frames and journalistic genre. The software myNews and NVivo were used for data collection and coding, while SPSS and Excel were used for statistical analysis. Findings indicate that sources related to the government, professional associations and scientific companies are the most frequently used, confirming the central role of government institutions as journalistic sources. These were followed by university scientists, scientific journals and clinicians. On the other hand, NGOs and patients groups were included in fewer than 5% of the articles. More than 30% included none or just one source expressing unbalanced perspectives. Frequent use of certain source types, particularly governmental, may indicate state structures of power. The study provides a better understanding of journalistic routines in the coverage of vaccines, including fresh perspectives in the current COVID-19 pandemic.
    Keywords:  content analysis; journalism; media; newspaper; public health; sources; vaccine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218136
  23. J Synchrotron Radiat. 2020 Nov 01. 27(Pt 6): 1460
    Announcement of conversion of Journal of Synchrotron Radiation to 100% open access from January 2022.
    Editorial Office.
      
    Keywords:  Journal of Synchrotron Radiation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577520013922
  24. Nature. 2019 Nov 06.
    On the shoulders of giants.
      
    Keywords:  History; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03165-4
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.