bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021–12–05
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Honorary Authorship: Is There Any Chance to Stop It? Analysis of the Literature and a Personal Opinion.
  2. Authorship and Publication Matters: Comment.
  3. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
  4. Transparent Peer Review: A Look Inside the Peer Review Process.
  5. 'Nothing about us without us': embedding participation in peer review processes.
  6. Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.
  7. Now More Than Ever: Reflections on the State and Importance of Peer Review.
  8. The value of reviewer diversity and inclusivity.
  9. A solution for breaking the language barrier.
  10. [Why the publication of case reports is so important].
  11. Open Science Indicators as Metadata Fields?
  12. A Warning Against Predatory Publishing Services.
  13. [Beware of Wolves in Sheep`s Clothing: A Brief Introduction to Open Access and Predatory Journals].
  14. Where to Publish: helping health sciences professionals find journals for publication quickly and safely.
  15. Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19.
  16. CAPMH: development of the first open access journal in the field of child mental health.
  17. The publication fate of abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association conferences.
  18. Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit.
  19. A FAIR platform for data-sharing.
  20. The perfect journal.
  21. Methods, models, mechanisms and metadata: Introducing the Nanotoxicology collection at F1000Research.
  22. FEBS Open Bio: past, present and future.
  1. Tomography. 2021 Nov 15. 7(4): 801-803
    Honorary Authorship: Is There Any Chance to Stop It? Analysis of the Literature and a Personal Opinion.
    Emilio Quaia, Filippo Crimi'.
      Honorary authorship corresponds to the intentional misrepresentation of credit to an individual whose contributions to a biomedical article do not meet the criteria for authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040067
  2. Anesthesiology. 2021 Nov 29.
    Authorship and Publication Matters: Comment.
    Igor Kissin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004047
  3. PLoS One. 2021 ;16(11): e0260558
    Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    Bridget C O'Brien, Anthony R Artino, Joseph A Costello, Erik Driessen, Lauren A Maggio.
       PURPOSE: Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone.
    METHODS: Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended "reject," we coded for alignment between reviewers' comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics.
    RESULTS: 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers' impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending "reject," the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%).
    CONCLUSION: Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260558
  4. ACS Cent Sci. 2021 Nov 24. 7(11): 1771-1772
    Transparent Peer Review: A Look Inside the Peer Review Process.
    Sofia Garakyaraghi, William Aumiller, Carolyn R Bertozzi, Gregory Scholes.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.1c01238
  5. J Adv Nurs. 2021 Nov 28.
    'Nothing about us without us': embedding participation in peer review processes.
    Debra Jackson, Calvin Moorley.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15122
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Dec 01. 6(1): 16
    Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.
    Evan Mayo-Wilson, Meredith L Phillips, Avonne E Connor, Kelly J Vander Ley, Kevin Naaman, Mark Helfand.
       BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly "Final Research Reports" of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI's Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin.
    METHODS: Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers' comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles.
    RESULTS: We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%).
    DISCUSSION: Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder's peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.
    Keywords:  Interventions; Patient centered outcomes research institute (PCORI); Peer review; Reporting bias; Research funding; Spin
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1
  7. PRiMER. 2021 ;5 36
    Now More Than Ever: Reflections on the State and Importance of Peer Review.
    Christopher P Morley, Sam Grammer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2021.216183
  8. Clin Teach. 2021 Dec 01.
    The value of reviewer diversity and inclusivity.
    Editorial Board of Medical Science Educator
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13442
  9. Trends Ecol Evol. 2021 Nov 27. pii: S0169-5347(21)00306-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    A solution for breaking the language barrier.
    Rassim Khelifa, Tatsuya Amano, Martin A Nuñez.
      Global problems require global scientific solutions, but the dominance of the English language creates a large barrier for many non-English-proficient researchers to make their findings and knowledge accessible globally. Here, we propose integrating peer-language proofing and translation systems in preprint platforms as a solution for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion in science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.003
  10. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2021 Dec;32(4): 423-424
    [Why the publication of case reports is so important].
    Carsten W Israel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-021-00827-7
  11. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 ;6 768428
    Open Science Indicators as Metadata Fields?
    Chris Fradkin, Rogério Mugnaini.
      Since 2000, there has been qualitative growth in the field of scientometrics. Innovations such as the DOI and the ORCID have irrevocably changed the scientific landscape. They have enabled analyses previously unheard of, in the decades preceding the new millennium. This paper proposes open science indicators (open data, open material, preregistration) as article-specific metadata fields. The authors reference the history of funding information, from bare acknowledgements to metadata field. The authors describe the mission of the Center for Open Science, and its TOP Factor database, as well as the performance of open science badges. Possibilities for a pilot study are explored, with an acknowledgement of the complexity of this undertaking.
    Keywords:  metadata; open science; open science badges; scientific rigor; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.768428
  12. J Nurs Meas. 2021 Dec 01. 29(3): 377
    A Warning Against Predatory Publishing Services.
    Belal Mahmoud Hijji.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-2021-0067
  13. Hu Li Za Zhi. 2021 Dec;pii: JN.202112_68(6).12. [Epub ahead of print]68(6): 91-98
    [Beware of Wolves in Sheep`s Clothing: A Brief Introduction to Open Access and Predatory Journals].
    Mei-Tzi Peng.
      The advance of information technology has led to the significant diversification of scholarly publishing. Over the past decade, the popularity of open access in scholarly publishing has led to an unintended rise in the number of predatory journals and the growth in predatory open access (POA) publishing practices. The main goal of POA publishing is to profit from article processing charges, and thus little or no attention is given to proper peer review or to editorial / publishing standards. Most articles published in predatory journals are tainted by examples of academic ethics violations such as falsification, deception, and fraud. Moreover, the risk of citation contamination is high, as articles published in POA publications may be cited and referenced in the legitimate scientific literature, with consequences including confounding subsequent research, negatively influencing public policies, and hindering social progress and public health. However, most nurses in Taiwan remain unfamiliar with this issue. This article provides a brief review of the open access movement and insights regarding how to assess the credentials of journals and publishers before submitting manuscripts to avoid predatory journals, promote academic integrity, and contribute to the sustainable development of the nursing profession.
    Keywords:  nursing; open access; predatory journals; science citation index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.202112_68(6).12
  14. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 01. 109(4): 684-685
    Where to Publish: helping health sciences professionals find journals for publication quickly and safely.
    Matt Weaver.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1355
  15. Account Res. 2021 Dec 02.
    Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19.
    Somipam R Shimray.
      The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in publishing a quantity of scientific research. In less than a year, a record of 200,000 scientific articles has been published on COVID-19. Publishing such a massive quantity of scientific research has instigated publishers to accelerate the review process. An upsurge in publication rate has resulted in increasing retraction rate. This paper focuses on the COVID-19 studies originating across the world from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2021. The data for this study was mined from http://retractiondatabase.org/. A total of 157 withdrawn articles on COVID-19 were retracted, and it was found that the United States of America contributed 31 (19.75%) retracted articles. Also, 16 (51.61%) of the retracted papers from the United States of America emerge in journals having an Impact Factor (IF). The study presents that 31 (19.75%) retracted articles were worked together by two authors, 26 (16.56%) with one author, and 22 (14.01%) by five authors. Further, Elsevier publishers have the highest retraction rate with 80 (50.96%). Half (50%) of the articles were retracted with "no information" as a reason for retraction. Other reasons for retraction include concern/issues about data, duplication, journal error, lack of approval from a third party, plagiarism, etc.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; journal impact factor; pandemic; research misconduct; retractions; scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.2014327
  16. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2021 Nov 30. 15(1): 72
    CAPMH: development of the first open access journal in the field of child mental health.
    Andreas Witt, Gerrit van Schalkwyk, Jörg M Fegert.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00426-x
  17. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 01. 109(4): 590-598
    The publication fate of abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association conferences.
    Rachel J Hinrichs, Mirian Ramirez, Mahasin Ameen.
       Objective: We sought to determine how many abstracts presented at the 2012 and 2014 Medical Library Association (MLA) annual conferences were later published as full-text journal articles and which features of the abstract and first author influence the likelihood of future publication. To do so, we replicated a previous study on MLA conference abstracts presented in 2002 and 2003. The secondary objective was to compare the publication rates between the prior and current study.
    Methods: Presentations and posters delivered at the 2012 and 2014 MLA meetings were coded to identify factors associated with publication. Postconference publication of abstracts as journal articles was determined using a literature search and survey sent to first authors. Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences in the publication rate, and logistic regression was used to assess the influence of abstract factors on publication.
    Results: The combined publication rate for the 2012 and 2014 meetings was 21.8% (137/628 abstracts), which is a statistically significant decrease compared to the previously reported rate for 2002 and 2003 (27.6%, 122/442 abstracts). The odds that an abstract would later be published as a journal article increased if the abstract was multi-institutional or if it was research, specifically surveys or mixed methods research.
    Conclusions: The lower publication rate of MLA conference abstracts may be due to an increased number of program or nonresearch abstracts that were accepted or a more competitive peer review process for journals. MLA could increase the publication rate by encouraging and enabling multi-institutional research projects among its members.
    Keywords:  congresses as topic; health sciences librarians; libraries, medical; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1220
  18. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 01. 109(4): 688-689
    Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit.
    Anson Parker, Abbey Heflin, Lucy Carr Jones.
      As part of a larger project to understand the publishing choices of UVA Health authors and support open access publishing, a team from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library analyzed an open data set from Europe PMC, which includes metadata from PubMed records. We used the Europe PMC REST API to search for articles published in 2017-2020 with "University of Virginia" in the author affiliation field. Subsequently, we parsed the JSON metadata in Python and used Streamlit to create a data visualization from our public GitHub repository. At present, this shows the relative proportions of open access versus subscription-only articles published by UVA Health authors. Although subscription services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions allow users to do similar analyses, we believe this is a novel approach to doing this type of bibliometric research with open data and open source tools.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1360
  19. Nat Neurosci. 2021 Dec;24(12): 1640
    A FAIR platform for data-sharing.
    Shari Wiseman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00976-5
  20. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021 Dec;15(12): 369-370
    The perfect journal.
    Michael Leveridge.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7688
  21. F1000Res. 2021 ;10 1196
    Methods, models, mechanisms and metadata: Introducing the Nanotoxicology collection at F1000Research.
    Iseult Lynch, Penny Nymark, Philip Doganis, Mary Gulumian, Tae-Hyun Yoon, Diego S T Martinez, Antreas Afantitis.
      Nanotoxicology is a relatively new field of research concerning the study and application of nanomaterials to evaluate the potential for harmful effects in parallel with the development of applications. Nanotoxicology as a field spans materials synthesis and characterisation, assessment of fate and behaviour, exposure science, toxicology / ecotoxicology, molecular biology and toxicogenomics, epidemiology, safe and sustainable by design approaches, and chemoinformatics and nanoinformatics, thus requiring scientists to work collaboratively, often outside their core expertise area. This interdisciplinarity can lead to challenges in terms of interpretation and reporting, and calls for a platform for sharing of best-practice in nanotoxicology research. The F1000Research Nanotoxicology collection, introduced via this editorial, will provide a place to share accumulated best practice, via original research reports including no-effects studies, protocols and methods papers, software reports and living systematic reviews, which can be updated as new knowledge emerges or as the domain of applicability of the method, model or software is expanded. This editorial introduces the Nanotoxicology Collection in F1000Research. The aim of the collection is to provide an open access platform for nanotoxicology researchers, to support an improved culture of data sharing and documentation of evolving protocols, biological and computational models, software tools and datasets, that can be applied and built upon to develop predictive models and move towards in silico nanotoxicology and nanoinformatics. Submissions will be assessed for fit to the collection and subjected to the F1000Research open peer review process.
    Keywords:  FAIR data; Nanomaterials; bio-nano interface; environmental fate and behaviour; exposure; green and sustainable nanomaterials; mode of action; nanoinformatics; nanosafety; regulation; risk assessment; safe-by-design; standardisation; toxicity; toxicogenomics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75113.1
  22. FEBS Open Bio. 2021 Dec;11(12): 3183-3188
    FEBS Open Bio: past, present and future.
    Duncan E Wright, Félix M Goñi, Mary Purton, László Fésüs, Johannes Buchner, John Mowbray, Miguel A De la Rosa.
      In celebration of the 10th anniversary of FEBS Open Bio, we spoke to some of the key figures of the journal's genesis, development, and its future direction, and recount here their thoughts and experiences. Prof. Félix. Goñi discusses the role of the FEBS Publication Committee in the journal's beginnings, Dr Mary Purton relates her experiences as the journal's Executive Editor, Prof. László Fésüs explains how the journal developed during his tenure as Chair of the Publication Committee, and Prof. Johannes Buchner looks forward to the future of FEBS Press and academic publishing. Finally, Prof. John (Iain) Mowbray describes his "Friday afternoon thought" to start a new journal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13326
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.