bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021–08–15
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. What costs half a year's pay for African scholars? Open access.
  2. Lessons from arXiv's 30 years of information sharing.
  3. Active or passive tense?
  4. The importance of having a conceptual stage when reporting non-randomized studies.
  5. Revising Manuscripts: Trying to Make Everyone Happy.
  6. Determination of the Worthiness for Publication.
  7. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? A discussion.
  8. eLabFTW as an Open Science tool to improve the quality and translation of preclinical research.
  9. CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.
  10. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case.
  11. Addressing conflicts of interest of ethical reviewers of health planning, management, policy and systems research proposals.
  12. Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity. The logismoi that jeopardize good research and publication.
  13. Honorary authorship in high-impact journals in anaesthesia and pain medicine.
  14. How Can Medical Journals Promote Equity and Counter Racism?
  15. Predatory journals - Alarming danger to the society.
  16. Training for communication in forensic science.
  17. Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016.
  18. Beware of Predatory Conferences: A Pandemic through Another Pandemic.
  19. Preventing the Matthew principle in science publishing.
  20. Emerging Subspecialties in Neurology: Becoming an Editor-in-Chief.
  21. Reflections on 40 Years as a Journal Editor.
  22. Editorial Strategy to Get a Scholarly Journal Indexed by Scopus.
  23. Gender disparities in publishing: from words to actions.
  24. Quality assessment of case reports in high-impact urology journals using SCARE guideline.
  25. Adherence rates of person-centered language in amputation research: A cross-sectional analysis.
  26. Voices of the new generation: open science is good for science (and for you).
  27. Lessons learnt in ethical publishing from mass casualty events: the Manchester bombing experience.
  1. Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7871): 189
    What costs half a year's pay for African scholars? Open access.
    Addisu Mekonnen, Colleen Downs, Edu O Effiom, Onja Razafindratsima, Nils Chr Stenseth, Colin A Chapman.
      
    Keywords:  Policy; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02173-7
  2. Nat Rev Phys. 2021 Aug 04. 1-2
    Lessons from arXiv's 30 years of information sharing.
    Paul Ginsparg.
      Since the launch of arXiv 30 years ago, modes of information spread in society have changed dramatically - and not always for the better. Paul Ginsparg, who founded arXiv, discusses how academic experience with online preprints can still inform information sharing more generally.
    Keywords:  Scientific data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00360-z
  3. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2020 Dec;7(4): 609-610
    Active or passive tense?
    Richard Ricky Villar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnab052
  4. Biostat Epidemiol. 2021 ;5(1): 9-18
    The importance of having a conceptual stage when reporting non-randomized studies.
    M-A C Bind, D B Rubin.
      Formal guidelines for statistical reporting of non-randomized studies are important for journals that publish results of such studies. Although it is gratifying to see some journals providing guidelines for statistical reporting, we feel that the current guidelines that we have seen are not entirely adequate when the study is used to draw causal conclusions. We therefore offer some comments on ways to improve these studies. In particular, we discuss and illustrate what we regard as the need for an essential initial stage of any such statistical analysis, the conceptual stage, which formally describes the embedding of a non-randomized study within a hypothetical randomized experiment.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/24709360.2021.1913707
  5. J Phys Chem A. 2021 Aug 13.
    Revising Manuscripts: Trying to Make Everyone Happy.
    Anastassia N Alexandrova, Gregory V Hartland.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.1c07066
  6. J Urol. 2021 Aug 12. 101097JU0000000000002181
    Determination of the Worthiness for Publication.
    Joseph A Smith.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002181
  7. Learn Behav. 2021 Aug 10.
    Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? A discussion.
    Richard M Shiffrin, Dora Matzke, Jonathon D Crystal, E-J Wagenmakers, Suyog H Chandramouli, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Marco Zorzi, Richard D Morey, Mary C Murphy.
      Roberts (2020, Learning & Behavior, 48[2], 191-192) discussed research claiming honeybees can do arithmetic. Some readers of this research might regard such claims as unlikely. The present authors used this example as a basis for a debate on the criterion that ought to be used for publication of results or conclusions that could be viewed as unlikely by a significant number of readers, editors, or reviewers.
    Keywords:  Comparative cognition; Evidence; Extraordinary claims; Numerical cognition; Publication criteria
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-021-00474-5
  8. F1000Res. 2021 ;10 292
    eLabFTW as an Open Science tool to improve the quality and translation of preclinical research.
    Michael Hewera, Daniel Hänggi, Björn Gerlach, Ulf Dietrich Kahlert.
      Reports of non-replicable research demand new methods of research data management. Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are suggested as tools to improve the documentation of research data and make them universally accessible. In a self-guided approach, we introduced the open-source ELN eLabFTW into our lab group and, after using it for a while, think it is a useful tool to overcome hurdles in ELN introduction by providing a combination of properties making it suitable for small preclinical labs, like ours. We set up our instance of eLabFTW, without any further programming needed. Our efforts to embrace open data approach by introducing an ELN fits well with other institutional organized ELN initiatives in academic research.
    Keywords:  ELN; Electronic Lab Notebook; Open Science; Quality Management; Reproducibility; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52157.1
  9. F1000Res. 2021 ;10 253
    CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.
    Daniel Nüst, Stephen J Eglen.
      The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research.  To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.
    Keywords:  Open Science; code sharing; data sharing; peer review; quality control; reproducibility; reproducible research; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51738.2
  10. Scientometrics. 2021 Aug 05. 1-38
    A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case.
    Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni.
      In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children" by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.'s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.'s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.'s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.'s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.'s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.
    Keywords:  Citation analysis; Retraction; Science of Science; Topic modeling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04097-5
  11. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2021 Aug 11.
    Addressing conflicts of interest of ethical reviewers of health planning, management, policy and systems research proposals.
    Alexandre Manguele, Mohsin Sidat, Carel IJsselmuiden, Paulo Ferrinho.
      Steering health systems towards universal health coverage requires research on themes that are of particular interest to health planning, management, policy and systems researchers. Some issues, such as strikes regarded as illegal and health sector corruption, because of their social and political sensitivity have, for too long, remained outside adequate research inquiry. Their emergence in the research agenda raises some challenges for Human Research Ethics Committees, particularly related to their conflicts of interests as reviewers, that need clarification.
    Keywords:  conflicts of interest; health planning; human research ethics committees; management; policy and systems research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3295
  12. Cir Esp. 2021 Aug 05. pii: S0009-739X(21)00208-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity. The logismoi that jeopardize good research and publication.
    Fernando Augusto Mardiros Herbella, Michael Gregory Sarr, Marco Giuseppe Patti.
      Publications are used widely as a measure of academic quality. Many investigators have difficulty publishing in this competitive field. After coming across a religious lecture on the "Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity", our team adapted this approach to life to the science of publishing: (1) what is the problem of doing it?; (2) there are worse!; (3) everybody does it!; (4) why exaggerate?; (5) I will do it tomorrow!; (6) maybe if …; (7) it is not used anymore!; (8) be a cousin not a brother!; (9) I need to be thanked!; (10) don't eat your own head, let it be!; (11) I can't possibly accomplish it!; (12) I don't feel like doing it!; (13) I am fed up!; (14) I am not worthwhile! These crutches jeopardize good research and thoughtful learned publications.
    Keywords:  Becas; Bibliometrics; Bibliometría; Escritura médica; Investigación; Manuscripts; Manuscritos; Medical writing; Publicaciones; Publications; Research; Scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2021.05.012
  13. Br J Pain. 2021 Aug;15(3): 246-248
    Honorary authorship in high-impact journals in anaesthesia and pain medicine.
    Roshni Hs Matawlie, Jamie Rj Arjun Sharma, Judith D de Rooij, Geetanjali Sardjoe Mishre, Frank Jpm Huygen, Pravesh S Gadjradj.
      Enlisting an author on a published paper, whose input was insufficient, is called honorary authorship. The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of honorary authorship in the field of pain medicine. Data were collected from seven high-impact journals. Corresponding authors were sent a survey regarding their awareness on authorship guidelines, the decision-making in authorship and specific contributions made to the surveyed article. We identified two types of honorary authorship: (1) self-perceived honorary authorship, which is measured by asking the corresponding author if honorary authorship was present according to their opinion and (2) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined honorary authorship, which is honorary authorship based on the guidelines. In total, 1051 mails were sent and 231 responded, leading to a response rate of 22.0%. 81.3% of the respondents were familiar with the ICMJE authorship guidelines, while 59.6% were aware of the issue of honorary authorship. 13.3% of the respondents were employed at a department in which the senior member is automatically included on all manuscripts. The ICMJE-defined honorary authorship was 40%, while self-perceived honorary authorship was 13.5%. There seems to be a high awareness of the ICMJE guidelines among corresponding authors in the field of Pain Medicine. Despite this high awareness, a high proportion of journal articles had honorary authorship, suggesting that authorship guidelines fail to be applied in a significant proportion of the literature.
    Keywords:  Honorary authorship; anaesthesia; pain; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637211023526
  14. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Aug 13.
    How Can Medical Journals Promote Equity and Counter Racism?
    Jeffrey L Jackson, Carol Bates, Steven M Asch, Rachel Roberts, Jenni R Clarkson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06984-2
  15. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021 Oct;21 101507
    Predatory journals - Alarming danger to the society.
    Abhishek Vaish, Raju Vaishya.
      Research and publications have taken the driver's seat in the last decade, especially amongst the Orthopaedic surgeons of India (Vaishya and Lal, 2016 Oct-Dec)1. Doing research and publishing scientific papers is crucial to practice evidence-based medicine and keep updated on the latest developments. It is also a quick method to get recognized in your field by your peers and colleagues. Sometimes, publishing literature is vital to gain positions in the profession and achieve promotions (Patralekh et al., 2021)2. As a result, there is a sudden upsurge in printed literature that is inaccurate or up to the mark. It has become tough to believe the conclusions provided and alter one's clinical practice based on these facts. Hence, before reading a paper, one must learn to assess the journal's quality and its publications. In recent times, there is an upsurge in the number of predatory journals causing harm to the entire research world.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Orthopedics; Predatory journals; Publication; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101507
  16. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2021 Aug 09. pii: ETLS20200296. [Epub ahead of print]
    Training for communication in forensic science.
    Brenda L Hoffman, Lucina Hackman, Laura A Lindenfeld.
      Scientists are increasingly becoming better prepared to communicate science in a variety of different settings, yet significantly less attention has been paid to communicating science in the courtroom, a setting which carries major societal impact. This article explores key issues surrounding science communication in the courtroom. We outline a conceptual system for communication training that includes ideas about fostering greater collaboration across different stakeholder groups, and training expert witnesses to communicate scientific evidence in ways that are accessible and accurate. Critical to this concept is supporting communication that upholds the integrity of the science, while also maintaining expectations for interactions in the courtroom.
    Keywords:  communication; culture; forensic science; team science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20200296
  17. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 13. 11(8): e045372
    Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016.
    Stephanie Knippschild, Jeremias Loddenkemper, Sabrina Tulka, Christine Loddenkemper, Christine Baulig.
       OBJECTIVES: Access to full texts of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is often limited, so brief summaries of studies play a pivotal role. In 2008, a checklist was provided to ensure the transparency and completeness of abstracts. The aim of this investigation was to estimate adherence to the reporting guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts (CONSORT-A) in RCT publications.
    PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Assessment according to the percentage of compliance with the 16 CONSORT-A criteria per study.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on a full survey (212 RCT abstracts in dental implantology, PubMed search, publication period 2014-2016, 45 journals, median impact factor: 2.328). In addition to merely documenting 'adherence' to criteria, the authors also assessed the 'complete implementation' of the requested information where possible. The collection of data was performed independently by two dentists, and a final consensus was reached. The primary endpoint was evaluated by medians and quartiles. Additionally, a Poisson regression was conducted to detect influencing factors.
    RESULTS: A median of 50% (Q1-Q3: 44%-63%) was documented for the 16 criteria listed in the CONSORT-A statement. Nine of the 16 criteria were considered in fewer than 50% of the abstracts. 'Correct implementation' was achieved for a median of 43% (Q1-Q3: 31%-50%) of the criteria. An additional application of Poisson regression revealed that the number of words used had a locally significant impact on the number of reported CONSORT criteria for abstracts (incidence rate ratio 1.001, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.002).
    CONCLUSION: Transparent and complete reporting in abstracts appears problematic. A limited word count seems to result in a reduction in necessary information. As current scientific knowledge is often not readily available in the form of publications, abstracts constitute the primary basis for decision making in clinical practice and research. This is why journals should refrain from limiting the number of words too strictly in order to facilitate comprehensive reporting in abstracts.
    Keywords:  oral & maxillofacial surgery; oral medicine; statistics & research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045372
  18. Indian J Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;43(4): 365-366
    Beware of Predatory Conferences: A Pandemic through Another Pandemic.
    Adesh Kumar Agrawal, Soumitra Das.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211023280
  19. Bioessays. 2021 Aug 10. e2100163
    Preventing the Matthew principle in science publishing.
    Dave Speijer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202100163
  20. Neurology. 2021 Aug 10. pii: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012609. [Epub ahead of print]
    Emerging Subspecialties in Neurology: Becoming an Editor-in-Chief.
    Nara Miriam Michaelson, Ashley Elimar Aaroe, Steven L Lewis, Joseph E Safdieh.
      An Editor-in-Chief leads the editorial team and supervises the daily tasks required to prepare articles for publication, while at the same time managing the overall content and style of the journal. To become Editor-in-Chief, one must have dedicated work ethic, close attention to detail, passion for the editorial process, and a keen ability to work with and give feedback to section editors and authors. For this article, we interviewed Dr. Steven L. Lewis, Dr. Joseph E. Safdieh, and Dr. S. Andrew Josephson about their collective experience of becoming Editors-in-Chief of Continuum, Neurology Today, and JAMA Neurology, respectively. We have compiled tips for aspiring medical writers and editors, based on their expert advice, to guide trainees in this potential career path.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012609
  21. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2021 07;66(4): 435-436
    Reflections on 40 Years as a Journal Editor.
    Patricia Aikins Murphy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13281
  22. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 2021 Mar;32(1): 1-2
    Editorial Strategy to Get a Scholarly Journal Indexed by Scopus.
    Armen Yuri Gasparyan, George D Kitas.
      
    Keywords:  Scopus; bibliography as topic; periodicals as topic; publishing; quality control; rheumatology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.32.1.1
  23. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Aug 05. pii: S2213-8587(21)00214-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Gender disparities in publishing: from words to actions.
    The Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00214-X
  24. Health Sci Rep. 2021 Sep;4(3): e353
    Quality assessment of case reports in high-impact urology journals using SCARE guideline.
    Asaad Moradi, Mehran Moghimian, Alireza Ghoreifi, Behnam Shakiba.
       Background and Aims: The usefulness of case reports is dependent on the complete, consistent, and rigorous reporting of these cases. In order to provide a standard guideline for reporting surgical case reports, the SCARE (Surgical CAse REport) guidelines were developed in 2016. The present study evaluated the completeness and transparency of published case reports in high-impact urology journals based on the SCARE guideline.
    Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 100 case reports published in Urology, Urology Journal, BMC Urology, and Urology Case Reports journal. Two independent reviewers performed the scoring using the last version of SCARE statement. Each of the 34 items of SCARE guideline were classified as "yes" if the item was reported in the case report text. The SCARE items were classified as "no" when the authors of case reports had not reported that item or could not tell something about reporting the item. Completeness of reporting (COR) score was calculated for each case report. COR score (%) is defined as ["yes" answers/("yes" answers + "no" answers)] × 100 for each case report.
    Results: The mean COR score for all the assessed case reports was 49%, ranging from 21% to 79%. Topics with the highest mean COR score were introduction (77% ± 42%), additional information (75% ± 43%), patient information (65% ± 19%), and abstract (66% ± 24%). In contrast, topics with the lowest mean COR were patient perspective (1% ± 10%) and keywords (3% ± 17%).
    Conclusion: The present study showed that case reports published in urology journals suffer from insufficient reporting. SCARE or CARE guidelines can provide a framework for assessing the reporting quality of case reports before publication. Nevertheless, further studies are highly recommended to better evaluate the efficacy of these guidelines' endorsement on the quality of case reports published in urology journals.
    Keywords:  case report; journal; quality; urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.353
  25. Disabil Health J. 2021 Jul 14. pii: S1936-6574(21)00138-2. [Epub ahead of print] 101172
    Adherence rates of person-centered language in amputation research: A cross-sectional analysis.
    Shannon Headley, Ike Potter, Ryan Ottwell, Taylor Rogers, Matt Vassar, Micah Hartwell.
       BACKGROUND: Person-centered language (PCL) is the recommended method of addressing patients by the American Medical Association Manual of Style in medical research, thus requiring published manuscripts to be free of non-PCL. Although individuals, communities, and organizations have the autonomy to use non-PCL, it is imperative for medical researchers to use PCL in an effort to reduce the transfer of stigmatization into clinical practice.
    OBJECTIVE: To determine current adherence to PCL related to individuals with limb or digit amputations in scientific journals.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed by systematically searching PubMed from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020 for publications focused on amputations. Journals with less than 20 articles were excluded, and remaining publications were randomized, with the first 500 articles selected. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria, and data were extracted in masked, duplicate fashion, for predetermined non-PCL terms. A chi-squared test and logistic regression were used to quantify PCL adherence study characteristics.
    RESULTS: Of 500 articles, 81 were excluded, and 419 articles from 13 journals were examined-64.6% containing non-PCL. The most common non-PCL terms used were "amputee" in 148 articles and "limb loss" in 138 articles. PCL was significantly associated with article type, research funding, and journal requirements for PCL.
    CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that one-third of research articles were PCL-adherent, which we speculate may contribute to the stigma that individuals with amputations experience. Our findings suggest that PCL adherence is higher among surgery research and lower among engineering and prosthetic research.
    Keywords:  Amputation; Person-centered language; Stigma
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101172
  26. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021 Aug 11.
    Voices of the new generation: open science is good for science (and for you).
    Neville E Sanjana.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-021-00414-1
  27. Emerg Med J. 2021 Aug 10. pii: emermed-2021-211661. [Epub ahead of print]
    Lessons learnt in ethical publishing from mass casualty events: the Manchester bombing experience.
    Edward Carlton, Ellen J Weber.
      
    Keywords:  care systems; disaster planning and response; ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211661
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.