bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒10‒24
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. J Law Med Ethics. 2021 ;49(3): 489-494
      The new NIH data sharing policy, effective January 2023, requires researchers to submit a data management and data sharing plan in their grant application. Expanded data sharing, encouraged by NIH to facilitate secondary research, will require informed consent documents to explain data sharing plans, limitations, and procedures.
    Keywords:  Data Management; Data Sharing; Informed Consent; NIH Policy; Secondary Research
  2. J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Oct 18. 36(40): e275
      Numerous guidelines on how to write a scientific article have been published. Many books and articles giving detailed instructions on how to develop a research question, perform a literature search, or design a study protocol are widely available. However, there are few guidelines on how to create logical flow when writing a scientific article. Logical flow is the key to achieving a smooth and orderly progression of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content towards a convincing conclusion. This article provides guidelines for creating logical flow when writing the text and main sections of a scientific article. The first step is creating a draft outline of the whole article. Once completed, the draft outline is developed into a single, coherent article that logically explains the study. Logical flow in the text is created by using precise and concise words, composing clear sentences, and connecting well-structured paragraphs. The use of transitions connects sentences and paragraphs, ensuring clarity and coherence when presenting academic arguments and conclusions. Logical flow in the main sections of a scientific article is achieved by presenting the whole story of the article sequentially in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, focusing attention on the most important points in each section, and connecting all of these to the main purpose of the study.
    Keywords:  Clarity; Coherence; Logical Flow; Scientific Article; Scientific Writing; Transitions
  3. Nature. 2021 Oct 21.
    Keywords:  Databases; Peer review; Research data
  4. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2021 Oct-Dec;64(4):64(4): 631-632
  5. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2021 Sep-Oct;12(5):12(5): 683-686
      Case report is regarded as one of the first line of evidence in medical science. There have been numerous circumstances, where the initial dissemination (and breakthrough) of scientific knowledge had been done, with the help of case reports. Case report is a particular variety of manuscript that showcases the unusual features and management of a patient. The words of William Osler (Father of modern medicine) "Always note and record the unusual…publish it. Place it on permanent record as a short, concise note. Such communications are always of value," still hold relevance in today's era. In this article, we shall discuss the keys to draft a case report worthy of publication.
    Keywords:  Case reports; tips; tricks
  6. Elife. 2021 Oct 19. pii: e71368. [Epub ahead of print]10
      Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review.
    Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats.
    Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers' ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, pre-registered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not pre-registered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen's d of 0.20 to 0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications.
    Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity.
    Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH.
    Keywords:  cell biology; medicine; none
  7. Nature. 2021 Oct;598(7881): 415
    Keywords:  Culture; Health care; Publishing
  8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Oct 17. 21(1): 217
      BACKGROUND: Th EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool.METHODS: We conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal.
    RESULTS: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on and 60% after.
    CONCLUSION: The data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.
    Keywords:  Education; Reporting guidelines; Reproducibility; Software; Standards
  9. Indian J Med Ethics. 2021 Oct-Dec;VI(4):VI(4): 339-340
      Our generation read medical journals as we used to read telephone books or encyclopaedias: we extract whatever useful facts are in them as efficiently as possible, without considerable critical reflection. This tendency is exacerbated by the pressures of professional life: those who are in a position to adopt the new scientific information presented in medical journals are also often those with the least time to ruminate on the nature of it. This is unfortunate for, as Dalrymple points out, "there is more in a medical journal than straightforward scientific truth, if only because scientific truth is itself often less than straightforward."
  10. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021 Oct 15. pii: S0885-3924(21)00565-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      Systemic or structural racism describes an embedded pattern of explicit and implicit racial biases that, through policy and action, systematically confer advantage to white people and disadvantage Black, indigenous, and other people of color. Hospice and palliative care journals participate in this broader system of racial discrimination. Building on palliative care's explicit focus on patients' goals and values, which may in and of itself comprise a form of social justice in healthcare, palliative care journals and their publishers have an opportunity to lead others in cultivating anti-racist practices and explicitly promoting equity. The publication life cycle of submission and solicitation, manuscript peer-review, and publication provide a framework for examining the structures, processes, and outcomes by which palliative care and other journals might address systemic racism. We describe the current academic publishing landscape, which diminishes the voices and experiences of racial and ethnic minority patients and undermines the careers of under-represented scholars. We then propose reforms that we believe will improve publication equity and quality as well as healthcare outcomes. These include an Equity in Publication checklist, solicitation of manuscripts on equity-relevant topics, promotion of scholars through editorial structures and peer review processes, and a standard Equity Rating for publications. Greater efforts to include non-dominant voices in every aspect of publication, through appropriate recognition of their scholarship and remuneration for their efforts, will drive equity in health outcomes. By pursuing an anti-racist and equity-focused publishing agenda, hospice and palliative medicine journals and their publishers have an opportunity to transform healthcare.
    Keywords:  Academic Publication; Anti-racism; Palliative Care
  11. Acta Radiol. 2021 Oct 22. 2841851211054174
      Acta Radiologica celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2021. In this article, the foundation of the journal and its editors are described. During 100 years, the manuscript structure changed from single-author verbose monographs to multi-author collaborations on statistically analyzed research subjects. The authorship changed from purely Nordic authors to a truly international cadre of authors, and the size of the journal increased considerably, in issues per year, printed pages, and published articles per year. The Foundation of Acta Radiologica has been able to give out two prizes, the Xenia Forsselliana and the Acta Radiologica International Scientific Prize for the best manuscripts each year. The increasing submissions of manuscripts is an indication that Acta Radiologica will continue to publish important scientific results for many years to come.
    Keywords:  History; publishing; radiology