bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021–10–17
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.
  2. Relationship between an editor in chief's commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals.
  3. Publication bias and the tourism-led growth hypothesis.
  4. Prospective Observational Evaluation of Predatory Journals in Critical Care Pharmacy Practice: Defining Characteristics Associated With Receiving Unsolicited Invitations to Publish.
  5. Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships.
  6. Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses - a scoping review.
  7. Open archive preprints: The challenge ahead.
  8. Female dermatology journal editors accepting pharmaceutical payments: An analysis of the Open Payments database, 2013 to 2018.
  9. Peer review and its ethical implications.
  10. Don't be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments.
  11. Open Access Publications with Article Processing Charge (APC) Payment: a Brazilian Scenario Analysis.
  12. Perceptions, relationships, expectations, and challenges: Views of communication and research for scientific dissemination in Brazilian Federal Institutes.
  13. [The COVID-19 Pandemic Changes the Scientific Publication System].
  14. Acceptable limits for publishing animal research.
  15. Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
  16. International health library associations urge the ICMJE to seek information specialists as peer reviewers for knowledge synthesis publications.
  17. Improve Your Peer Review.
  18. CRediT for authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
  19. How to be a good science communicator.
  20. Grant Writing Doesn't Have to Be a Pain: Tips for Preparation, Writing and Dissemination.
  21. Striving for equity: An update from the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
  22. Why and how to declare conflicts of interest.
  23. Write accessibly.
  24. Open access publication in Vet Record: what are the benefits?
  25. How I wrote a pop-science book.
  26. How to convert your conference abstract into a paper for Nursing in Critical Care.
  27. Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication: International Endodontic Journal policy on reporting conflicts of interest, funding and acknowledgments within manuscripts submitted for publication.
  28. Letter to the editor re. "Representation of women in sport sciences research, publications, and editorial leadership positions: Are we moving forward?"
  1. J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Oct 11. 36(39): e247
    Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.
    Latika Gupta, Javeria Tariq, Marlen Yessirkepov, Olena Zimba, Durga Prasanna Misra, Vikas Agarwal, Armen Yuri Gasparyan.
       BACKGROUND: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties.
    METHODS: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries.
    RESULTS: Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), non-Anglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism.
    CONCLUSION: Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Limited English Proficiency; Periodicals as Topic; Plagiarism; Publishing; Surveys and Questionnaires; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e247
  2. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jul 01. 109(3): 459-463
    Relationship between an editor in chief's commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals.
    Alex Salazar, Michael Joseph Berry.
      Journal impact factor (IF) inflation is suggested as a problem resulting from commentaries published by the editors in chief (EiCs) of their respective journals. However, it is unclear whether this is a systemic problem across the top thirty cardiovascular medicine journals. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between the number of commentaries written by an EiC and their journal's IF and Eigenfactor (Ef). Utilizing Spearman rank partial correlations controlling for length of service as the EiC, significant moderate correlations were found between the number of commentaries and the number of first-author commentaries by the EiC and the IF of their journal (r=0.568, p=0.001 and r=0.504, p=0.005; respectively). A weak but still significant correlation was found between the number of commentaries by the EiC and the Ef of their journal (r=0.431, p=0.020). The reason for these correlations is unclear, and whether the methodology used to compute the IF and Ef should be modified needs further research.
    Keywords:  Eigenfactor; cardiology; editorial comment; impact factor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1145
  3. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(10): e0258730
    Publication bias and the tourism-led growth hypothesis.
    Nikeel Nishkar Kumar, Arvind Patel, Ravinay Amit Chandra, Navneet Nimesh Kumar.
      This study attempts to solve the publication bias suggested by recent review articles in the tourism-growth literature. Publication bias is the tendency to report favourable and significant results. Method and data triangulation, and the Solow-Swan model are applied. A sample from 1995 to 2018 is considered with Tonga as a case study. The approach consists of multiple methods, data frequencies, exchange rates, structural breaks, and an overall tourism index developed using principal component analysis (PCA). Consistent results across these dimensions are obtained with the PCA models. Tourism has small, positive, and statistically significant economic growth effects. Theoretically consistent values of the capital share and exchange rates are obtained. The results indicate the importance of multiple methods and the overall tourism index in assessing the tourism-growth relationship and minimising publication biases. The practical implication is the provision of robust elasticity estimates and better economic policies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258730
  4. J Pharm Pract. 2021 Oct 13. 8971900211036091
    Prospective Observational Evaluation of Predatory Journals in Critical Care Pharmacy Practice: Defining Characteristics Associated With Receiving Unsolicited Invitations to Publish.
    William J Peppard, Sarah R Peppard, Joel T Feih, Andy K Kim, Steve J Obenberger, Ashley F Mulvey, Bi Qing Teng, Ruta Brazauskas, Kate O Pape, Gabrielle A Gibson, Amy L Dzierba, Paul P Dobesh.
      Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P < .001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal.
    Keywords:  critical care; open access; pharmacy; predatory; publish
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900211036091
  5. Anaesthesia. 2021 Oct 14.
    Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships.
    B Morton, A Vercueil, R Masekela, E Heinz, L Reimer, S Saleh, C Kalinga, M Seekles, B Biccard, J Chakaya, S Abimbola, A Obasi, N Oriyo.
      Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.
    Keywords:  authorship; ethics; global health; health equity; international health; research; research ecosystem
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15597
  6. Res Synth Methods. 2021 Oct 13.
    Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses - a scoping review.
    Rui Wang, Kerry Dwan, Marian G Showell, Madelon van Wely, Ben W Mol, Lisa Askie, Anna Lene Seidler.
      Publishing systematic review protocols is a fundamental part of systematic reviews to ensure transparency and reproducibility. In this scoping review, we aimed to evaluate reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses (NMA). We searched all Cochrane NMA protocols published in 2018 and 2019, and assessed the characteristics and reporting of methodologies relevant to NMA. We reported frequencies for each reporting item. Forty-five protocols were assessed, including two for overviews and 43 for intervention reviews. Thirty-three (73%) were labelled as NMA protocols in the title. Forty-two (95%) justified the need of an NMA and 40 (89%) used appropriate search strategies to identify potential eligible studies. About half (24, 53%) considered the transitivity assumption when reporting inclusion criteria and 35 (78%) specified potential effect modifiers. Forty-three (96%) reported statistical software for NMA, 25 (56%) reported NMA model choice, 32 (71%) reported framework choice and 32 (71%) reported assumption about heterogeneity variances. Protocols varied in whether they reported methods for relative ranking (35, 78%), statistical inconsistency (40, 89%), reporting bias (44, 98%) and sources of heterogeneity (39, 87%). In conclusion, Cochrane NMA protocols reported multiple NMA-specific items well, but could be further improved, especially regarding transitivity assumptions. Our recommendations for NMA protocol reporting based on this scoping review could assist authors, reviewers and editors to improve NMA protocols. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  Cochrane; network meta-analysis; protocol; reporting; transitivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1531
  7. J Visc Surg. 2021 Oct;pii: S1878-7886(21)00149-1. [Epub ahead of print]158(5): 367-369
    Open archive preprints: The challenge ahead.
    K Slim, M Selvy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2021.09.009
  8. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021 Sep;7(4): 451-453
    Female dermatology journal editors accepting pharmaceutical payments: An analysis of the Open Payments database, 2013 to 2018.
    Waqas Haque, Eman Haque, David Hsiehchen.
       Background: Pharmaceutical payments may affect the interpretation of clinical research and prescribing patterns of physicians. Additionally, they may reflect gender disparities in academic dermatology with regard to social recognition and opportunities for career advancement.
    Objective: We examined relationships with industry among male and female journal editors who accepted pharmaceutical payments in leading dermatology journals.
    Methods: We assessed the seven US journals among the leading 20 dermatology journals as determined by impact factor and gathered data via the CMS Open Payments dataset.
    Results: In a cross-sectional study of 329 editors eligible to appear in the Open Payments website, we found that 218 (66.3%) received industry payments totaling $21,952,402. The mean and median dollar value of payments per editor was $100,699 and $3,638 (interquartile range, $364-$57,108). Food and beverage payments accounted for 63.0% of the $28,992 total payments, and the associated dollar value was $887,617 (4.04%). Gender disparities in corporate payments were observed in other contexts, but we did not find a similar relationship among leading dermatology journals.
    Conclusion: Our work highlights that pharmaceutical payments exist among dermatology editors, providing a rationale for future research to address whether editor bias related to pharmaceutical payments exists and more granular studies on the role of gender with regard to navigating such payments.
    Keywords:  Conflicts of interest; Female journal editors; Industry payments; Open Payments; Women in medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.02.008
  9. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2021 Oct;pii: S1055-8586(21)00086-X. [Epub ahead of print]30(5): 151098
    Peer review and its ethical implications.
    Franklin C Margaron, Christian S McEvoy, Kristina A Toncray, Patrick J Javid.
      Peer review is an essential tool for institutions and providers to meet the modern goals of safety and quality in health care. It is a mechanism that leads to a just culture within a health care institution whereby errors and complications are considered products of the system rather than isolated actions by an individual. The benefits and potential drawbacks of peer review are outlined in this review with a special emphasis on the interface between peer review and principles of medical ethics. It is argued that peer review, in the ideal setting, is founded upon the principles of beneficence and justice, and to varying levels on non-maleficence and autonomy.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Impaired provider; Just culture; Peer review; Systems
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151098
  10. Perspect Med Educ. 2021 Oct;10(5): 299-303
    Don't be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments.
    Chris Watling, Shiphra Ginsburg, Lorelei Lingard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00670-z
  11. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2021 ;pii: S0001-37652021000701807. [Epub ahead of print]93(4): e20201984
    Open Access Publications with Article Processing Charge (APC) Payment: a Brazilian Scenario Analysis.
    Bárbara Neves Alencar, Marcia C Barbosa.
      The expansion of open access publications has been correlated with specific government policies in many countries. The evolution in these cases is understandable within the framework of funding regulations. However, this is not the case for Brazil, where no regulation is currently in place. The unusually high percentage of open access publications in the Brazilian scientific community is analyzed here toward understanding which factors influence this growth and how similar effects may also impact other countries, particularly developing nations. We found that from 2012 to 2019 the Brazilian scientific community drifted to international open access journals. This transition is discussed in the framework of mega journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120201984
  12. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(10): e0258492
    Perceptions, relationships, expectations, and challenges: Views of communication and research for scientific dissemination in Brazilian Federal Institutes.
    Tássia Galvão, Priscilla Rayanne E Silva Noll, Matias Noll.
      Communicating Brazilian science still seems to be a challenge for journalists and researchers of public institutions of education and science. In this sense, this research aims to identify and analyze scientists' perceptions regarding the work of journalists, the relationship between these groups, the expectations, and the challenges of science communication in two Federal Institutes of Education in Brazil. We conducted a mixed study in the qualitative stage with the participation of 30 interviewees, and in the quantitative stage, journalists and researchers answered a questionnaire (n = 242). Our results indicated that the work of science communication is not carried out properly in both Institutes and that there is a lack of articulated work among both journalists, communicators, and researchers. The relationship between these groups needs to be built jointly. In this respect, the biggest challenges are to institutionalize science communication, establish a science communication plan, and overcome internal relationship barriers. Our results may underpin science communication policies and policies for scientific dissemination both institutional or even national levels.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258492
  13. Arch Bronconeumol. 2021 Jan;57 17-18
    [The COVID-19 Pandemic Changes the Scientific Publication System].
    Rafael Dal-Ré, Ferrán Morell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2020.10.010
  14. Vet Rec. 2021 Jan;188(1): 38-39
    Acceptable limits for publishing animal research.
    Jane Sansom.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.66
  15. F1000Res. 2021 ;10 491
    Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
    Daniel G Hamilton, Hannah Fraser, Fiona Fidler, Steve McDonald, Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Kyungwan Hong, Matthew J Page.
      Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher's policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.
    Keywords:  Code sharing; Data sharing; Health sciences; Medicine; Meta-analysis; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.53874.1
  16. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jul 01. 109(3): 503-504
    International health library associations urge the ICMJE to seek information specialists as peer reviewers for knowledge synthesis publications.
    Sandy Iverson, Maurella Della Seta, Carol Lefebvre, Ann Ritchie, Lisa Traditi, Kevin Baliozian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1301
  17. Laryngoscope. 2021 Oct 15.
    Improve Your Peer Review.
    Samuel Selesnick.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29907
  18. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jul 01. 109(3): 362-364
    CRediT for authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
    Kristine M Alpi, Katherine G Akers.
      To help ensure that authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) receive appropriate recognition for their contributions and to make individual author roles more transparent to readers, JMLA articles will begin including Author Contribution statements using the Contributor Role Taxonomy.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1294
  19. Nat Med. 2021 Oct;27(10): 1656-1658
    How to be a good science communicator.
    Meenakshi J.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01528-x
  20. Pain Manag Nurs. 2021 Oct;pii: S1524-9042(21)00196-X. [Epub ahead of print]22(5): 561-564
    Grant Writing Doesn't Have to Be a Pain: Tips for Preparation, Writing and Dissemination.
    Jinbing Bai, Staja Q Booker, Anitha Saravanan, Timothy Joseph Sowicz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2021.08.009
  21. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jul 01. 109(3): 359-361
    Striving for equity: An update from the Journal of the Medical Library Association.
    Katherine G Akers, Ellen M Aaronson, Kathleen Amos, Kelsa Bartley, Alexander J Carroll, Thane Chambers, John W Cyrus, Erin R B Eldermire, Brenda Linares, Beverly Murphy, Melanie J Norton, J J Pionke, Amy Reyes.
      In 2020, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) launched an initiative aimed at providing more equitable opportunities for authors, reviewers, and editorial team members. This editorial provides an update on the steps we have taken thus far to empower authors, increase the diversity of our editorial team, and make equity-minded recommendations to the Medical Library Association.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1279
  22. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Oct 07. pii: S1877-0568(21)00353-4. [Epub ahead of print] 103103
    Why and how to declare conflicts of interest.
    Philippe Clavert, Henri Migaud.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103103
  23. Nat Biomed Eng. 2021 Oct 15.
    Write accessibly.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00816-8
  24. Vet Rec. 2021 Jan;188(1): 28-29
    Open access publication in Vet Record: what are the benefits?
    Emma Boxer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.43
  25. Nature. 2021 Oct 15.
    How I wrote a pop-science book.
    John Tregoning.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02835-6
  26. Nurs Crit Care. 2021 Sep;26 Suppl 1 4-5
    How to convert your conference abstract into a paper for Nursing in Critical Care.
    Lyvonne N Tume, Sarah Vollam, Josef Trapani.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12691
  27. Int Endod J. 2021 Nov;54(11): 1969-1973
    Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication: International Endodontic Journal policy on reporting conflicts of interest, funding and acknowledgments within manuscripts submitted for publication.
    Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Peter E Murray, Clovis M Faggion, Paul M H Dummer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13599
  28. J Sci Med Sport. 2021 Nov;pii: S1440-2440(21)00183-3. [Epub ahead of print]24(11): 1098
    Letter to the editor re. "Representation of women in sport sciences research, publications, and editorial leadership positions: Are we moving forward?"
    James H Lubowitz, Joshua D Harris, Jefferson C Brand, Michael J Rossi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2021.07.006
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.