bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021–07–25
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. 8% of researchers in Dutch survey have falsified or fabricated data.
  2. Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data.
  3. "What if We All Said No?": Removing Barriers to Peer Review.
  4. Reviewing Peer Review.
  5. Altruism as enlightened self-interest: How helping others through peer review helps you.
  6. Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
  7. The Art of Reviewing Manuscripts.
  8. Costing academic publications: author-pay principle, and manuscript submission and article processing charges.
  9. Making data meaningful: guidelines for good quality open data.
  10. Scientific publishers expedite name changes for authors.
  11. Preprints and Medical Journals: Some Things You Should Know as an Author.
  12. Writing your first paper: An informal guide for medical radiation sciences professionals.
  13. Let's Write a Manuscript - A Primer with Tips & Tricks for Penning an Original Article.
  14. Practical Tips of English Expressions for Non-Native English-Speaking Peer Reviewers.
  15. European Heart Journal quality standards.
  16. Referencing in Scientific Writing.
  17. Dr. Alexander Wlodawer-celebrating five decades of service to the structural biology community.
  1. Nature. 2021 Jul 22.
    8% of researchers in Dutch survey have falsified or fabricated data.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02035-2
  2. BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 21. 11(7): e050270
    Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data.
    Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Marc Domingo, Tiago Barros.
       OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour.
    DESIGN: Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics' journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database.
    SETTING: Peer review of journal articles.
    PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons.
    MEASUREMENTS: Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year.
    RESULTS: Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%).
    CONCLUSION: To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.
    Keywords:  medical education & training; medical ethics; medical journalism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050270
  3. Am J Pharm Educ. 2021 Jul 22. 8746
    "What if We All Said No?": Removing Barriers to Peer Review.
    Melissa S Medina, JoLaine R Draugalis.
      
    Keywords:  faculty development; peer review; publishing; quality; reviewing; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8746
  4. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jul 19. e021475
    Reviewing Peer Review.
    Barry London.
      
    Keywords:  Editorials; peer review; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021475
  5. Med Educ. 2021 Aug;55(8): 880-882
    Altruism as enlightened self-interest: How helping others through peer review helps you.
    Kevin W Eva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14584
  6. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jul 19. e019903
    Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Mario Gaudino, N Bryce Robinson, Antonino Di Franco, Irbaz Hameed, Ajita Naik, Michelle Demetres, Leonard N Girardi, Giacomo Frati, Stephen E Fremes, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai.
      Background Quality of the peer-review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer-review process of biomedical manuscripts. Methods and Results All randomized trials comparing different peer-review interventions at author-, reviewer-, and/or editor-level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention-modified peer-review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer-review process. Five-hundred and seventy-five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author-level, 16 at reviewer-level, and 3 at editor-level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer-review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta-analysis, reviewer-level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author- and editor-level interventions did not significantly impact peer-review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [-0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [-0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [-0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [-0.40 to 0.79] for duration). Conclusions Modifications of the traditional peer-review process at reviewer-level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910.
    Keywords:  network meta‐analysis; peer‐review; review quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.019903
  7. J Phys Chem A. 2021 Jul 21.
    The Art of Reviewing Manuscripts.
    Anastassia N Alexandrova, Gregory V Hartland.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.1c06146
  8. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2021 May-Jun;32(3):32(3): 115
    Costing academic publications: author-pay principle, and manuscript submission and article processing charges.
    P A Brink.
      
  9. J Soc Psychol. 2021 Jul 22. 1-8
    Making data meaningful: guidelines for good quality open data.
    Andrea S Towse, David A Ellis, John N Towse.
      
    Keywords:  data sharing; open science; public data archiving; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1938811
  10. Nature. 2021 Jul 21.
    Scientific publishers expedite name changes for authors.
    Amy DePaul.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02014-7
  11. Balkan Med J. 2021 Jul;38(4): 203-204
    Preprints and Medical Journals: Some Things You Should Know as an Author.
    Zafer Koçak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5152/balkanmedj.2021.21005
  12. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2021 Jul 16. pii: S1939-8654(21)00141-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Writing your first paper: An informal guide for medical radiation sciences professionals.
    Andrew Murphy, Amanda Bolderston.
      Writing and submitting a paper can be a daunting prospect, especially the first time. One of the more challenging aspects is knowing how to begin. Countless projects in the workplace never make it past local dissemination or conference presentation. This informal guide will help you take that next step and begin the peer-reviewed publication journey.
    Keywords:  Evidence-based practice; How to; Radiation therapy; Radiography; continual professional development; education; radiation oncology; radiologic technology; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2021.06.008
  13. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Jul 13.
    Let's Write a Manuscript - A Primer with Tips & Tricks for Penning an Original Article.
    Levent Ozcakar, John-Ross Rizzo, Franco Franchignoni, Stefano Negrini, Walter R Frontera.
      A group of international researchers and editors summarize how (promptly and easily) an original manuscript can be written using certain tips and tricks. In other words, the authors guide novice colleagues with minimal experience using simple hints and straightforward advice in scholarly publishing. The main body of an original article is composed of four parts: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (the IMRaD format). We make recommendations about how to write these sections. We also make suggestions regarding the title, abstract, key words, and references. In addition, we underline the importance of carefully reading and following both general recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly papers. Specific guidelines are reviewed for improving clarity, accuracy and transparency, from protocol registration and ethical approval to submission issues, inclusive of rehabilitation specificities. A thorough review of the mission and instructions of the journals under consideration is critical inclusive of manuscript preparation guidelines such as word limits of main text, limits in number and style of references, tables and figures, format, checklist, and other specific instructions. Finally, each and every sentence should be iteratively revised for grammar, style, and clarity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001847
  14. Vasc Specialist Int. 2021 Jul 20. 37 23
    Practical Tips of English Expressions for Non-Native English-Speaking Peer Reviewers.
    Mikyoung Lee.
      Peer review is an essential part in ensuring the quality of papers published in scientific journals. Good reviews are beneficial for both authors and journal editors by providing authors with the opportunity to improve their manuscripts and editors with valuable comments to aid themselves to make their decisions. Despite a plethora of research articles on general guidelines for peer reviewing, it is difficult to find papers on English expressions peer reviewers can use, in particular for nonnative English-speaking peer reviewers. Therefore, this article provides "downto-earth" guidance for non-native English-speaking reviewers to construct better quality reviews. To this end, I suggest useful English expressions to help peer reviewers, whose mother tongue is not English, enhance the quality of their reviews.
    Keywords:  English expression; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5758/vsi.210044
  15. Eur Heart J. 2021 Jul 21. 42(28): 2729-2736
    European Heart Journal quality standards.
    Fernando Alfonso, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Rickey E Carter, Filipo Crea.
      The aim of the European Heart Journal (EHJ) is to attract innovative, methodologically sound, and clinically relevant research manuscripts able to change clinical practice and/or substantially advance knowledge on cardiovascular diseases. As the reference journal in cardiovascular medicine, the EHJ is committed to publishing only the best cardiovascular science adhering to the highest ethical principles. EHJ uses highly rigorous peer-review, critical statistical review and the highest quality editorial process, to ensure the novelty, accuracy, quality, and relevance of all accepted manuscripts with the aim of inspiring the clinical practice of EHJ readers and reducing the global burden of cardiovascular diseases. This review article summarizes the quality standards pursued by the EHJ to fulfill its mission.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Biomedical journals; Editorial recommendations; Peer-review; Publication ethics; Scientific process; Trial registration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab324
  16. Wilderness Environ Med. 2021 Jul 20. pii: S1080-6032(21)00119-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Referencing in Scientific Writing.
    Neal W Pollock.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2021.06.002
  17. FEBS J. 2021 07;288(14): 4160-4164
    Dr. Alexander Wlodawer-celebrating five decades of service to the structural biology community.
    Wladek Minor, Mariusz Jaskolski, Seamus J Martin, Zbigniew Dauter.
      This 75th birthday tribute to our Editorial Board member Alexander Wlodawer recounts his decades-long service to the community of structural biology researchers. His former and current colleagues tell the story of his upbringing and education, followed by an account of his dedication to quality and rigor in crystallography and structural science. The FEBS Journal Editor-in-Chief Seamus Martin further highlights Alex's outstanding contributions to the journal's success over many years.
    Keywords:  Alexander Wlodawer; macromolecular crystallography; structural biology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.16064
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.