bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021–07–04
37 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Evidence of spin in systematic reviews of interventions from the top 5 general medical journals: Overview of reviews.
  2. Quality Assessment of Published Systematic Reviews in High Impact Cardiology Journals: Revisiting the Evidence Pyramid.
  3. Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.
  4. Douglas Altman's 2009 Grand Lecture: Can we trust our literature?
  5. Factors that influence data sharing through data sharing platforms: A qualitative study on the views and experiences of cohort holders and platform developers.
  6. Publication patterns' changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis.
  7. Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review.
  8. The raw truth about paper mills.
  9. Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis.
  10. To see or not to see: a cross-sectional study suggesting lack of bias towards authors in the peer review process.
  11. "Evidence-based Checklists" for Identifying Predatory Journals have Not Been Assessed for Reliability or Validity: An Analysis and Proposal for Moving Forward.
  12. The Necessities for the Transparent Peer-Review.
  13. The Advantage of Automatic Peer-Reviewing of 13C-NMR Reference Data Using the CSEARCH-Protocol.
  14. Valuing Scholarship by Manuscript Reviewers: A Call to Action.
  15. How to: improve peer review skills for CMI.
  16. Who is afraid of being a reviewer? An A-Z of tips and tricks for peer review.
  17. Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.
  18. Pattern of Peer Review in Dermatology Domain: An Analysis of Reviewers' Profile from publons.com.
  19. Twitter integration of chemistry software tools.
  20. Scientific writing like a native English-speaker: tips for Italian researchers.
  21. Tips to avoid weak scientific English.
  22. Art of communication in medicine.
  23. Visual abstracts do not increase some impact scores more than conventional abstracts of clinical research: A retrospective cohort study.
  24. A scoping review of retracted publications in anesthesiology.
  25. Challenges in Identifying the Retracted Status of an Article.
  26. A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed.
  27. The role of gender in peer-group perceptions of climate scientists' media statements.
  28. From discursive reformulation to praxis of scientific culture: reflections on science communication.
  29. Online vs. Print Publication: The Case for Online Publication.
  30. Online vs. Print Publication: The Case for Print Publication.
  31. Supporting, enabling and empowering.
  32. Suggesting Reviewers to Improve Your Manuscript.
  33. Beginning of JPR's Great Voyage to the Open Science World.
  34. Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update.
  35. [Let's Submit a Manuscript to Radiological Physics and Technology (RPT)!(2) Impact Factor and its Importance].
  36. Editorial Board meeting of the Polish Journal of Neurology and Neurosurgery - announcement of the gold open access for the journal.
  37. Quantum Materials: A New Open Section in Materials.
  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 29. pii: S0895-4356(21)00194-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Evidence of spin in systematic reviews of interventions from the top 5 general medical journals: Overview of reviews.
    D P Nascimento, M O Almeida, L F C Scola, A A Vanin, L A Oliveira, L C M Costa, L O P Costa.
       OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of spin in SRs of interventions from the top-5 general medical journals, as well as to investigate characteristics of SRs that were associated with spin in the abstract.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This overview of reviews included a random sample of full-published SRs with meta-analysis. Selected journals were: 1) Lancet; 2) Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA); 3) British Medical Journal (BMJ); 4) Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM); and 5) JAMA Internal Medicine. The electronic search on each selected journal website and on PubMed covered the period from January 2011 to November 2017. Methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed through the AMSTAR-2 checklist (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Data selection, extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. Descriptive analysis was performed. We used a seven-item SPIN checklist to assess spin in the abstracts and full texts. Two linear regression models were built to investigate the association between the presence of spin in the abstract and full text with some characteristics of the SRs.
    RESULTS: 196 SRs were included (total of 11,881,507 participants), from which 32 were from JAMA Internal Medicine, 39 from BMJ, 40 from Lancet, 42 from JAMA and 43 from AIM. The assessment of SRs methodological quality resulted in 152 SRs with critically low overall confidence, 37 with low, 6 with moderate and only 1 high overall confidence. The journals presented from 1 to 4 items of spin (out of 7), ranging from 84% to 100% in abstracts and 51% to 81% in full texts. Higher levels of spin in the abstracts were associated with critically low methodological quality reviews (ß 0.22; 95% CI 0.14, 0.63). The main limitation of this study was the exclusion of the New England Journal of Medicine.
    CONCLUSIONS: More than half of full texts and most of abstracts presented spin, with the latter associated with reviews methodological quality. Ultimately, the flaws could only be directed to the authors, journal editors and reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.016
  2. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 ;8 671569
    Quality Assessment of Published Systematic Reviews in High Impact Cardiology Journals: Revisiting the Evidence Pyramid.
    Abdelrahman I Abushouk, Ismaeel Yunusa, Ahmed O Elmehrath, Abdelmagid M Elmatboly, Shady Hany Fayek, Omar M Abdelfattah, Anas Saad, Toshiaki Isogai, Shashank Shekhar, Ankur Kalra, Grant W Reed, Rishi Puri, Samir Kapadia.
      Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool. Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7-75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5-22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6-67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9-64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1-55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1-83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3-53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5-29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics. Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.
    Keywords:  cardiology; critical appraisal; publication bias; quality assessment; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.671569
  3. J Osteopath Med. 2021 Jun 30.
    Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.
    Wesley Tanner Cole, Peter Wittl, Wade Arthur, Ryan Ottwell, Benjamin Greiner, Gershon Koshy, Justin Chronister, Micah Hartwell, Jonathan Staheli, Drew N Wright, Meghan Sealey, Lan Zhu, Matt Vassar.
       CONTEXT: "Spin" is a form of bias that involves highlighting study results in a way that presents the conclusions about benefit or efficacy beyond the scope of the data. Spin in the abstract of published studies has the potential to affect patient care, making investigations about its presence and prevalence important for readers.
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the most severe types of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.
    METHODS: Using a cross sectional study design, the authors searched MEDLINE and Embase with the terms "percutaneous coronary intervention," "percutaneous coronary revascularization," "PCI," "systematic review," "meta analysis," and "meta-analysis." To be considered for this study, the article must have (1) focused on PCI; (2) had either a systematic review or metaanalysis study design; (3) been conducted on human subjects; and (4) been available in English. Reviews were excluded if these criteria were not met. Each included article was assessed for the nine most severe types of spin as defined in a previously published article, as well as other study characteristics (type of intervention being compared, date the review was received, adherence of systematic review and/or meta-analysis to Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews or Metanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines, requirement of PRISMA guidelines by the publishing journal, the publishing journal's five-year impact factor, and sources of funding).
    RESULTS: Our database search retrieved 7,038 records; 2,190 duplicates were removed. Initial title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 4,367 records, and an additional 281 records were excluded during full text screening. An arbitrary limit of 200 articles was applied for this analysis; five additional articles were excluded for ineligible study design, so 195 were included in our final analysis. Spin was present in the abstracts of 43 studies from that pool (22.1%). Spin type 3-selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention-occurred most frequently (29; 14.8%). The presence of spin was not associated with any of the extracted study characteristics.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that spin occurred in more than one in every five systematic reviews or metaanalyses of PCI. Spin has the potential to distort a reader's ability to translate the true findings of a study; therefore, efforts are needed to prevent spin from appearing in article summaries.
    Keywords:  abstract; cardiovascular medicine; metaanalysis; percutaneous coronary intervention; spin; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2021-0085
  4. Neurochirurgie. 2021 Jun 26. pii: S0028-3770(21)00170-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Douglas Altman's 2009 Grand Lecture: Can we trust our literature?
    Jean Raymond, Olivier Naggara, François Guilbert, Tim Darsaut.
      Recent studies of the medical literature have revealed numerous and serious problems. Errors in the design, methods and interpretation of studies can frequently be identified. A huge hidden problem is publication bias, the tendency for positive articles to be published, while negative articles are either not written or submitted. This can systematically lead to an overestimation of the value of treatments, of diagnostic or prognostic studies. Even more worrisome is selective reporting: only a subset of a wide array of tested hypotheses are presented (the ones that turned out to be positive with significance testing). This is particularly true for secondary endpoints and subgroup findings, but even the primary endpoints of trials have been modified when publications are compared to protocols. The peer-review process is fallible. Even if it were strengthened, reviewers cannot examine what is not reported. Hence many problems can only be mitigated with better reporting. Numerous initiatives have proposed guidelines to promote transparent reporting, but progress is slow.
    Keywords:  EQUATOR network; Research conduct; Research design; Research methodology; Research reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2021.06.009
  5. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(7): e0254202
    Factors that influence data sharing through data sharing platforms: A qualitative study on the views and experiences of cohort holders and platform developers.
    Thijs Devriendt, Pascal Borry, Mahsa Shabani.
       BACKGROUND: Infrastructures are being developed to enhance and facilitate the sharing of cohort data internationally. However, empirical studies show that many barriers impede sharing data broadly.
    PURPOSE: Therefore, our aim is to describe the barriers and concerns for the sharing of cohort data, and the implications for data sharing platforms.
    METHODS: Seventeen participants involved in developing data sharing platforms or tied to cohorts that are to be submitted to platforms were recruited for semi-structured interviews to share views and experiences regarding data sharing.
    RESULTS: Credit and recognition, the potential misuse of data, loss of control, lack of resources, socio-cultural factors and ethical and legal barriers are elements that influence decisions on data sharing. Core values underlying these reasons are equality, reciprocity, trust, transparency, gratification and beneficence.
    CONCLUSIONS: Data generators might use data sharing platforms primarily for collaborative modes of working and network building. Data generators might be unwilling to contribute and share for non-collaborative work, or if no financial resources are provided for sharing data.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254202
  6. Scientometrics. 2021 Jun 23. 1-24
    Publication patterns' changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis.
    Shir Aviv-Reuven, Ariel Rosenfeld.
      In recent months the COVID-19 (also known as SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus) pandemic has spread throughout the world. In parallel, extensive scholarly research regarding various aspects of the pandemic has been published. In this work, we analyse the changes in biomedical publishing patterns due to the pandemic. We study the changes in the volume of publications in both peer reviewed journals and preprint servers, average time to acceptance of papers submitted to biomedical journals, international (co-)authorship of these papers (expressed by diversity and volume), and the possible association between journal metrics and said changes. We study these possible changes using two approaches: a short-term analysis through which changes during the first six months of the outbreak are examined for both COVID-19 related papers and non-COVID-19 related papers; and a longitudinal approach through which changes are examined in comparison to the previous four years. Our results show that the pandemic has so far had a tremendous effect on all examined accounts of scholarly publications: A sharp increase in publication volume has been witnessed and it can be almost entirely attributed to the pandemic; a significantly faster mean time to acceptance for COVID-19 papers is apparent, and it has (partially) come at the expense of non-COVID-19 papers; and a significant reduction in international collaboration for COVID-19 papers has also been identified. As the pandemic continues to spread, these changes may cause a slow down in research in non-COVID-19 biomedical fields and bring about a lower rate of international collaboration.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Journals; Preprint; Publication analysis; Scientometrics; Scopus
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04059-x
  7. BMC Med Ethics. 2021 06 28. 22(1): 80
    Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review.
    Lydia O'Sullivan, Ronan P Killeen, Peter Doran, Rachel K Crowley.
       BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 may feel under pressure to participate in research during the pandemic. Safeguards to protect research participants include ethical guidelines [e.g. Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice (GCP)], legislation to protect participants' privacy, research ethics committees (RECs) and informed consent. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) advises researchers to document compliance with these safeguards. Adherence to publication guidelines has been suboptimal in other specialty fields. The aim of this rapid review was to determine whether COVID-19 human research publications report compliance with these ethical safeguards.
    METHODS: A rapid systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE using the search term 'COVID-19'. The search was performed in April 2020 with no start date and repeated to include articles published in November 2020. Filters were 'Full free text available' and 'English Language'. Two reviewers assessed article title, abstracts and full texts. Non-COVID-19 articles and non-clinical studies were excluded. Independent reviewers conducted a second assessment of a random 20% of articles. The outcomes included reporting of compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP, REC approval, informed consent and participant privacy.
    RESULTS: The searches yielded 1275 and 1942 articles of which 247 and 717 were deemed eligible, from the April  search and November respectively. The majority of journals had editorial policies which purported to comply with ICMJE ethical standards. Reporting of compliance with ethical guidelines was low across all study types but was higher in the November search for case series and observational studies. Reporting of informed consent for case studies and observational studies was higher in the November search, but similar for case series. Overall, participant confidentiality was maintained but some case studies included a combination of details which would have enabled participant identification. Reporting of REC approval was higher in the November search for observational studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of journal's editorial policies purported to support the ethical safeguards, many COVID-19 clinical research publications identified in this rapid review lacked documentation of these important safeguards for research participants. In order to promote public trust, ethical declarations should be included consistently.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Declaration of Helsinki; Good Clinical Practice; Informed Consent; Pandemic; Patient and Public Involvement; Research Ethics Committee; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00649-9
  8. FEBS Lett. 2021 Jun 27.
    The raw truth about paper mills.
    Jana Christopher.
      In 2018, the community first observed scientific papers in the biomedical literature that seemed to display systematically fabricated data, pointing to the existence of paper mills: unofficial, potentially illegal organizations selling fake scientific manuscripts. In the present article, we share relevant information specifically about the 'raw data' associated with paper mill manuscripts. If a submitted manuscript displays clear indicators of potential paper mill involvement, we found that the raw data at close inspection often raise doubts about their authenticity. In the absence of real data, paper mills may need to fabricate raw data images when responding to requests from journals. Given the necessity to streamline production of fake manuscripts, the alleged raw data might be created using templates. Some potential methods for generating fake Western blot images are discussed. Paying close attention to image data, including graphs, diagrams, plots and tables, ideally at pre-publication stage, can clearly help prevent publication of incorrect and fabricated information.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14143
  9. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(6): e0253713
    Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis.
    Antonio M Mendes, Fernanda S Tonin, Felipe F Mainka, Roberto Pontarolo, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos.
       BACKGROUND: Scholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies.
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed.
    METHODS: All the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between 'submission date' and 'acceptance date'), lead lag (days between 'acceptance date' and 'online publication date'), and indexing lag (days between 'online publication date' and 'Entry date'). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups.
    RESULTS: The 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57-173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56-155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen's d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6-35) and 23 days (IQR 9-45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2-46) and 4 days (IQR 2-12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: Publication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253713
  10. Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jun 29.
    To see or not to see: a cross-sectional study suggesting lack of bias towards authors in the peer review process.
    H Daou, L Gu, S R Lipner.
      Scientific manuscript peer review has a 300-year history, but formal analysis of validity of peer review began in the late 20th century.1 Peer review bias was suggested in the 1980s,2 but in a 1997 congress,2 no significant reviewer bias was detected.3 Within dermatology, the peer review process has hardly been studied. The majority of dermatology journals have a single-blind (SB) peer review process, with reviewers informed of author identity, but authors unaware of reviewers'. Few journals have a double-blind (DB) process, such that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of identity. We conducted a cross-sectional study investigating associations between peer review blinding and author publication metrics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20607
  11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 25. pii: S0895-4356(21)00193-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    "Evidence-based Checklists" for Identifying Predatory Journals have Not Been Assessed for Reliability or Validity: An Analysis and Proposal for Moving Forward.
    Jeremy Y Ng, R Brian Haynes.
       BACKGROUND: Predatory journals (PJs) pose a threat to the quality/integrity of scientific publishing. Checklists have been proposed to identify PJs, but few are "evidence-based". This study's objective was to search for/assess evidence-based checklists (EBCs) for reliability and validity, based on a new consensus definition of PJs.
    METHODS: A published methods guideline for scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of identified EBCs. Items from each EBC were compared against the consensus definition, and a list of items to be considered in the creation of a composite EBC to identify PJs was generated.
    RESULTS: Four EBCs were identified. None of these had completed the first of the nine steps for scale development and validation. Forty seven items from the four EBCs were assessed against the consensus definition, of which 28 items fell within the definition. A proposed composite EBC was created from items matching components of the consensus definition.
    CONCLUSIONS: EBCs to detect PJs lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the scope of the new consensus definition of PJs. With the recent consensus definition, EBCs creators now have a clearer target, can make adjustments.
    Keywords:  checklist; journalology; predatory publishing; reliability; validity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.015
  12. Iran J Public Health. 2021 Apr;50(4): 831-832
    The Necessities for the Transparent Peer-Review.
    Jung Hun Lee, Jeong Ho Jeon, Kwang Seung Park, Tae Yeong Kim, Ji Hwan Kim, Sang Hee Lee.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i4.6010
  13. Molecules. 2021 Jun 04. pii: 3413. [Epub ahead of print]26(11):
    The Advantage of Automatic Peer-Reviewing of 13C-NMR Reference Data Using the CSEARCH-Protocol.
    Wolfgang Robien.
      A systematic investigation of the experimental 13C-NMR spectra published in Molecules during the period of 1996 to 2015 with respect to their quality using CSEARCH-technology is described. It is shown that the systematic application of the CSEARCH-Robot-Referee during the peer-reviewing process prohibits at least the most trivial assignment errors and wrong structure proposals. In many cases, the correction of the assignments/chemical shift values is possible by manual inspection of the published tables; in certain cases, reprocessing of the original experimental data might help to clarify the situation, showing the urgent need for a public domain repository. A comparison of the significant key numbers derived for Molecules against those of other important journals in the field of natural product chemistry shows a quite similar level of quality for all publishers responsible for the six journals under investigation. From the results of this study, general rules for data handling, data storage, and manuscript preparation can be derived, helping to increase the quality of published NMR-data and making these data available as validated reference material.
    Keywords:  13C-NMR; NMR; computer-assisted peer-reviewing; database; spectrum prediction; structure generation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26113413
  14. J Grad Med Educ. 2021 Jun;13(3): 313-315
    Valuing Scholarship by Manuscript Reviewers: A Call to Action.
    Deborah Simpson, Lalena M Yarris, Anthony R Artino, Gail M Sullivan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-00418.1
  15. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jun 27. pii: S1198-743X(21)00359-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    How to: improve peer review skills for CMI.
    Luigia Scudeller, Julia Friedman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.028
  16. Cardiovasc Res. 2021 Jul 01. pii: cvab180. [Epub ahead of print]
    Who is afraid of being a reviewer? An A-Z of tips and tricks for peer review.
    Ingrid Fleming.
      
    Keywords:  Journal; Peer review; Publishing; Research; Statistics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvab180
  17. J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Jun 28. 36(25): e169
    Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.
    Sakir Ahmed, Marlen Yessirkepov.
       BACKGROUND: The five Central Asian republics comprise of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Their research and publication activities are gradually improving but there is limited data on how good their peer reviewing practices are.
    METHODS: We have use the Publons database to extract information on the reviewers registered including the number of verified review, Publons award winners, and top universities in the domain of peer reviewing. This has been analysed overall and country wise.
    RESULTS: Of 15,764 researchers registered on Publons, only 370 (11.7%) have verified records of peer-reviewing. There are 8 Publons award winners. There is great heterogeneity in the number of active reviewers across the five countries. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan account for more than 90% of verified reviewers. Only Kazakhstan has more than 100 active reviewers and 6 Publons award recipients. Amongst the top 20 reviewers from Central Asia, half of them are from the Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Three countries have less than 10 universities registered on Publons.
    CONCLUSION: Central Asia has a good number of peer reviewers on Publons though only a minority of researchers are involved in peer reviewing. However, the heterogeneity between the nations can be best dealt with by promoting awareness and international networking including e-learning and mentoring programs.
    Keywords:  Central Asia; Peer Review; Publications; Publons; Universities
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e169
  18. Indian J Dermatol. 2021 Mar-Apr;66(2):66(2): 225
    Pattern of Peer Review in Dermatology Domain: An Analysis of Reviewers' Profile from publons.com.
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijd.IJD_326_18
  19. J Cheminform. 2021 Jul 02. 13(1): 46
    Twitter integration of chemistry software tools.
    Naruki Yoshikawa, Ryuichi Kubo, Kazuki Z Yamamoto.
      Social media activity on a research article is considered to be an altmetric, a new measure to estimate research impact. Demonstrating software on Twitter is a powerful way to attract attention from a larger audience. Twitter integration of software can also lower the barriers to trying the tools and make it easier to save and share the output. We present three case studies of Twitter bots for cheminformatics: retrosynthetic analysis, 3D molecule viewer, and 2D chemical structure editor. These bots make software research more accessible to a broader range of people and facilitate the sharing of chemical knowledge, concepts, and ideas.
    Keywords:  Chemical space; Knowledge sharing; Molecule editor; Open science; Retrosynthesis; Social media; Twitter; Visualization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-021-00527-x
  20. Acta Biomed. 2021 Jul 01. 92(3): e2021234
    Scientific writing like a native English-speaker: tips for Italian researchers.
    Vincenzo Rago.
      .
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i3.11519
  21. Acta Biomed. 2021 Jul 01. 92(3): e2021235
    Tips to avoid weak scientific English.
    Maurizio Vanelli.
      In the present issue of Acta Biomedica is published a contribution of Rago V on "Scientific writing like a native English-speaker: tips for Italian researchers". The Author, over the past years, has collaborated with Italian researchers and has generally noticed that their English  status is relatively weak. Therefore, he gives "tips or dritte that do not always refer to incorrect English, but rather to weak scientific English" (1). [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i3.11810
  22. Postgrad Med J. 2021 Jun 30. pii: postgradmedj-2020-138869. [Epub ahead of print]
    Art of communication in medicine.
    Brian Yu Chien Sung, Bernard Man Yung Cheung.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138869
  23. Health Info Libr J. 2021 Jun 30.
    Visual abstracts do not increase some impact scores more than conventional abstracts of clinical research: A retrospective cohort study.
    Vaibhav Aggarwal.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the use of visual abstracts on social media platforms can improve comprehensive social media and conventional metrics such as total altmetric attention score, full text page views and citation counts (study outcomes) through retrospective cohort study.
    METHODS: We included all original research articles (Total 307 articles: N = 69 in visual abstract group and N = 238 in control group) published between July 2018 and January 2019 in the JAMA, BMJ and the NEJM and used negative binomial regression to adjust for article characteristics.
    RESULTS: Adjusted analysis showed no significant differences between articles with and without visual abstracts in the altmetric attention score (p = 0.37) and in number of page views (p = 0.44). Citations in the Web of Science core collection were found to be statistically significant favouring control group (p = 0.028). We also found no significant differences in altmetric attention score and page views after stratification for article type [randomised controlled trial (RCT) vs. non-RCT]. Citations counts were found to be borderline significant for RCT (p = 0.04) and non-significant for non-RCT.
    CONCLUSION: Visual abstracts might not be effective in disseminating scientific research. We should look at other innovative ways to improve the visibility of the research.
    Keywords:  abstracting and indexing; information dissemination; publishers and publishing; research impact; social media; statistics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12376
  24. Saudi J Anaesth. 2021 Apr-Jun;15(2):15(2): 179-188
    A scoping review of retracted publications in anesthesiology.
    Marco Fiore, Aniello Alfieri, Maria Caterina Pace, Vittorio Simeon, Paolo Chiodini, Sebastiano Leone, Stefan Wirz, Arturo Cuomo, Vincenzo Stoia, Marco Cascella.
       Context: Fraudulent publication is a scourge of scientific research.
    Objectives: This scoping review was aimed at characterizing retracted publications for fraud or plagiarism in the field of anesthesia. Does the reputation of the journal (Quartile and Impact Factor, IF) protect the reader from the risk of having the manuscript he read withdrawn for fraud/plagiarism?
    Methods/Design: This scoping review was planned following the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. Data sources: PubMed and the Retraction Watch Database (http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?). Study selection: All types of publications retracted. Data extraction: Year, first author nationality, journal name, journal category, IF, Quartile, H index. Data analysis: The association with Quartile and IF was investigated.
    Results: No significant association between retraction of papers published in no-Quartile journals and retractions published in journals placed in the highest quartile.
    Conclusions: The quality of the surveillance in paper submission is not higher in journals of the first Quartile than in journals not placed in other Quartiles. (The protocol was prospectively registered in the Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TGKNE).
    Keywords:  Anesthesiology; duplicate publication; fraud; plagiarism; scoping review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_1110_20
  25. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 01. 4(6): e2115648
    Challenges in Identifying the Retracted Status of an Article.
    Elizabeth M Suelzer, Jennifer Deal, Karen Hanus, Barbara E Ruggeri, Elizabeth Witkowski.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15648
  26. Iran J Public Health. 2021 Jan;50(1): 188-194
    A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed.
    Mohammad Javad Mansourzadeh, Javad Ghazimirsaeid, Nadia Motamedi, Ali Najafi, Auwal Abdullahi Abubakar, Hossein Dehdarirad.
       Background: Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and a warning for readers in relation to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data. As a result of growth and development of Iranian publications in the last two decades, that brings unethical behavior of researchers led to retraction of their publications. We aimed to investigate Iranian retracted publications indexed in PubMed database.
    Methods: All Iranian retracted publications published in PubMed up to Dec 2017 have been retrieved. Bibliographic information of retracted publications, retraction notice, time lag between article publication date and the date of retraction notice, reasons of retraction, Issuer of retraction and acknowledge information of retracted publication were recorded. Additionally, citation data of retracted publications before 2013 were analyzed.
    Results: Overall, 164 Iranian retracted publications were identified. Meantime lag was 20.8 months. "Islamic Azad University" and "Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)" were two affiliations that have received highest number of retracted publications. The most issuer of retraction publications was editor-in-chief and the most mentioned reasons for retractions were authorship issues, plagiarism, and redundant publication. Thirty-three (20.12%) publications have received funds from various agencies. Citation study of retracted publications indicates that these publications have received 789 citations (Citation per publication=11.6).
    Conclusion: Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased. More than half of retracted publications have had authorship issues and plagiarism that requires more attention to research ethics authorities.
    Keywords:  Bioethics; Ethics, Research; Iran; Plagiarism; Retracted publication; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i1.5086
  27. Public Underst Sci. 2021 Jul 02. 9636625211029198
    The role of gender in peer-group perceptions of climate scientists' media statements.
    Lauren Armstrong, George Adamson.
      This research explores whether environmental scientists perceive their male and female peers differently when making statements in the media including policy advocacy. Environmental scientists in the United Kingdom were provided with a media statement by a fictitious scientist containing a mixture of scientific information and advocacy, and asked to rate the statement against various attributes. Attributes were designed to represent stereotypes associated with male and female tendencies, and with science (impartial objectivity) and the media (dramatic narrative). The statements were randomly assigned to one of two male and two female scientists. Where the statements were attributed to a female scientist, male environmental scientists rated the fictitious scientist as significantly more 'dramatic' and 'biased' than their female counterparts did. These gendered attributes are typically held as contrary to the norms of science, suggesting an implicit bias among male scientists when reviewing their female peers' media statements.
    Keywords:  gender and science; media and science; science attitudes and perceptions; science communication; scientists - attitudes
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211029198
  28. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2021 Apr-Jun;28(2):pii: S0104-59702021000200375. [Epub ahead of print]28(2): 375-392
    From discursive reformulation to praxis of scientific culture: reflections on science communication.
    Guilherme da Silva Lima, Marcelo Giordan.
      This article addresses the main interpretations employed to understand science communication as a discursive reformulation of scientific discourse and as a genre of discourse of its own. Both these interpretations are analyzed critically, since the characteristics of the discourse of science communication are not equivalent to translation parameters nor compatible with criteria to understanding them as a component of their own discursive genre. Finally, it is emphasized that science communication should be understood as praxis objectified through activities developed amidst diverse spheres of ideological creation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702021000200003
  29. Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jun 29. pii: sjab267. [Epub ahead of print]
    Online vs. Print Publication: The Case for Online Publication.
    Ryan E Austin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab267
  30. Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jun 27. pii: sjab259. [Epub ahead of print]
    Online vs. Print Publication: The Case for Print Publication.
    Mohammed Alghoul.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab259
  31. Health Info Libr J. 2021 Jun;38(2): 79-80
    Supporting, enabling and empowering.
    Maria J Grant.
      When you think about a journal you probably think of it in terms of its interactions with authors, but relations extend beyond this and are embodied in the actions and values of the editorial team and board. The Health Information and Libraries Journal editorial team and board pride themselves in the support they provide to enable and build confidence in the contributing authors, and the referees who collaborate with them by providing constructive peer review.
    Keywords:  peer review; publication output; research support; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12377
  32. J Phys Chem B. 2021 Jun 30.
    Suggesting Reviewers to Improve Your Manuscript.
    Anastassia N Alexandrova, Gregory V Hartland.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c05522
  33. J Prosthodont Res. 2021 ;65(2):
    Beginning of JPR's Great Voyage to the Open Science World.
    Ryuji Hosokawa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.65.2_vi
  34. J Vet Intern Med. 2021 Jun 28.
    Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update.
    Jan M Sargeant, Mikayla Plishka, Audrey Ruple, Laura E Selmic, Sarah C Totton, Ellen R Vriezen.
       BACKGROUND: Comprehensive reporting of clinical trials is essential to allow the trial reader to evaluate the methodological rigor of the trial and interpret the results. Since publication of the updated Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting of parallel clinical trials in humans, extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials have been published.
    OBJECTIVES: To describe the types of trials using dogs and cats published from 2015 to 2020 and to evaluate the quality of reporting of a sample of recently published parallel and crossover trials.
    ANIMALS: None.
    METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify parallel or crossover design clinical trials using dogs and cats published from January 1, 2015 onwards. Quality of reporting was evaluated on a subset of trials published during 2019. The reporting of items recommended in the CONSORT reporting guidelines for abstracts, parallel trials, and crossover trials was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using standardized forms created for this study. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. Results were tabulated descriptively.
    RESULTS: The frequency of reporting of trial features varied from low to high. There remain deficiencies in the quality of reporting of key methodological features and information needed to evaluate and interpret trial results.
    CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: There is still a need for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to follow reporting guidelines such as CONSORT to maximize the value of clinical trials and to increase confidence in the validity of the trial results.
    Keywords:  CONSORT statement; companion animals; trial reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.16204
  35. Igaku Butsuri. 2021 ;41(2): 55-58
    [Let's Submit a Manuscript to Radiological Physics and Technology (RPT)!(2) Impact Factor and its Importance].
    Shigehiko Katsuragawa, Yoko Arai, Kunio Doi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.11323/jjmp.41.2_55
  36. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2021 ;55(3): 237-238
    Editorial Board meeting of the Polish Journal of Neurology and Neurosurgery - announcement of the gold open access for the journal.
    Zbigniew K Wszolek, Łukasz Stolarczyk, Jarosław Sławek.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5603/PJNNS.a2021.0048
  37. Materials (Basel). 2021 Jun 08. pii: 3142. [Epub ahead of print]14(12):
    Quantum Materials: A New Open Section in Materials.
    Heesun Yang.
      Quantum Materials is a new open section of Materials aimed at publishing original and review articles on novel scientific and applied research that significantly contribute to the understanding and discovery of quantum materials and related phenomena, functions, and applications [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123142
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.