bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–02–13
25 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Open-access megajournals in health and life sciences: what every researcher needs to know about this publishing model.
  2. Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues.
  3. Young GI angle: How to recognize a predatory journal.
  4. Ensuring rigor in systematic reviews: Part 7, critical appraisal of systematic review quality.
  5. RipetaScore: Measuring the Quality, Transparency, and Trustworthiness of a Scientific Work.
  6. The Rhythms of Scholarly Publication: Suggestions to Enhance Bibliometric Comparisons Across Disciplines.
  7. Frequency and Patterns of Editorial Rejections (Rejections without Peer Review) Across Medical Journals.
  8. Standards of Reporting-Another Hurdle to Get a Manuscript Accepted?
  9. Are some academic nursing journal editors in danger of becoming thought police?
  10. Professor Sharon Clarke (Editor, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology).
  11. The spectrum of data sharing policies in neuroimaging data repositories.
  12. Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations.
  13. Publishing fast and slow: A path toward generalizability in psychology and AI.
  14. COVID-19 Article Retractions in Journals Indexed in PubMed.
  15. The Use of Person-Centered Language in Scientific Research Articles Focused on Autism.
  16. Publish or perish: the dilatory fate of "in press" papers in contemporary scientific publications.
  17. Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021.
  18. Be careful with abbreviations.
  19. The crisis from above: Gatekeepers need better standards.
  20. The relevance of the Journal.
  21. Editorial priorities and timeliness of editorial assessment and peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  22. What the editors are reading - Basic science.
  23. Double-Blind Reviews: A Step Toward Eliminating Unconscious Bias.
  24. Reviewer's Checklists for Evaluating Scientific Manuscripts.
  25. Relevance of Scientific Letters.
  1. Curr Drug Res Rev. 2022 Feb 09.
    Open-access megajournals in health and life sciences: what every researcher needs to know about this publishing model.
    Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira.
      due to its low selectivity of accepted articles A megajournal is a peer-reviewed scientific open access journal designed to be much larger than a classical traditional journal. The low selectivity review criteria largely focused on the scientific soundness of the research methodology and on ethical issues without regard to the importance and application of the results, the advocated fast peer review and the very broad scope usually covering a whole discipline such as biomedicine or social science, are the major hallmarks. This publishing model was pioneered by PLOS One and was soon followed by other publishers. A few years ago there was a belief that the academic journal landscape would became dominated by the megajournals model, but a decline has been registered in the last few years. In this editorial aims to present the current state of the art of the open-access megajournals (OAMJs) in the universe of scientific publications.
    Keywords:  broad scope; open-access megajournals; scientific publishing; scientific soundness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2174/2589977514666220209101713
  2. Scientometrics. 2022 Jan 31. 1-14
    Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues.
    Ivan Kodvanj, Jan Homolak, Davor Virag, Vladimir Trkulja.
      COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. Manuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and September 27 2020 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch Database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints. With adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.80-2.14) as well as over the entire observed period (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.48). Submission-to-acceptance was by 35.85 days (95% CI: 32.25-39.45) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020. Current data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7.
    Keywords:  COVID19; Peer-review; Preprint; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7
  3. United European Gastroenterol J. 2022 Feb;10(1): 130-133
    Young GI angle: How to recognize a predatory journal.
    Cătălina Vlăduț, Henriette Heinrich.
      
    Keywords:  journal; open access; predatory; publish
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12198
  4. Heart Lung. 2022 Feb 03. pii: S0147-9563(22)00008-5. [Epub ahead of print]53 32-35
    Ensuring rigor in systematic reviews: Part 7, critical appraisal of systematic review quality.
    Alexandria Brackett, Janene Batten.
      Methodological transparency and reproducibility are essential for systematic reviews. Peer review of systematic review manuscripts ensures researchers achieve transparency and reproducibility. Using critical appraisal and quality assessment tools is a methodological way for peer reviewers to conduct a thorough critique to assess the rigor and transparency of the systematic review.
    Keywords:  AMSTAR 2; JBI; Meta-analysis; PRESS; Peer review; ROBIS; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.01.008
  5. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 ;6 751734
    RipetaScore: Measuring the Quality, Transparency, and Trustworthiness of a Scientific Work.
    Josh Q Sumner, Cynthia Hudson Vitale, Leslie D McIntosh.
      A wide array of existing metrics quantifies a scientific paper's prominence or the author's prestige. Many who use these metrics make assumptions that higher citation counts or more public attention must indicate more reliable, better quality science. While current metrics offer valuable insight into scientific publications, they are an inadequate proxy for measuring the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of published research. Three essential elements to establishing trust in a work include: trust in the paper, trust in the author, and trust in the data. To address these elements in a systematic and automated way, we propose the ripetaScore as a direct measurement of a paper's research practices, professionalism, and reproducibility. Using a sample of our current corpus of academic papers, we demonstrate the ripetaScore's efficacy in determining the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of an academic work. In this paper, we aim to provide a metric to evaluate scientific reporting quality in terms of transparency and trustworthiness of the research, professionalism, and reproducibility.
    Keywords:  reproducibility; research integrity; research metrics; research quality; scientific indicators
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.751734
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 ;7 812312
    The Rhythms of Scholarly Publication: Suggestions to Enhance Bibliometric Comparisons Across Disciplines.
    Anthony J Olejniczak, William E Savage, Richard Wheeler.
      
    Keywords:  academic disciplines; academic publishing; bibliometrics; higher education research; research evaluation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.812312
  7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022 Feb 04. pii: S0190-9622(22)00198-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Frequency and Patterns of Editorial Rejections (Rejections without Peer Review) Across Medical Journals.
    Vishnu Harikumar, Kelly A Reynolds, Rachel E Christensen, Hoi Ting Wan, Rachael Winner, Sarah A Ibrahim, Bianca Y Kang, Denis Fouque, Emily Poon, Dirk M Elston, Murad Alam.
      
    Keywords:  Frequency; editorial rejections; medical journals; patterns; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2022.01.047
  8. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2022 Feb 08.
    Standards of Reporting-Another Hurdle to Get a Manuscript Accepted?
    Klaus Hausegger.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03058-6
  9. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022 Feb 01. pii: S1471-5953(22)00018-X. [Epub ahead of print]59 103304
    Are some academic nursing journal editors in danger of becoming thought police?
    David R Thompson, Roger Watson, Niall McCrae.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103304
  10. J Occup Health Psychol. 2022 Feb;27(1): 1-2
    Professor Sharon Clarke (Editor, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology).
    Sharon Clarke.
      In this brief article, the editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology notes that there has been a rapid increase in the visibility of occupational health psychology over the last 25 years, which has seen growing impact and importance of OHP topics. In this time, the nature of work has changed considerably due to significant societal and technological transformations and particularly over the last 2 years as the result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic, which has impacted all of our lives, including our mental health, well-being, and safety in the context of work. The author welcomes the incoming editorial team, thanks members of the outgoing editorial team, and thanks the editorial board for their support as she starts her editorial tenure in 2022. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000319
  11. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022 Feb 10.
    The spectrum of data sharing policies in neuroimaging data repositories.
    Anita S Jwa, Russell A Poldrack.
      Sharing data is a scientific imperative that accelerates scientific discoveries, reinforces open science inquiry, and allows for efficient use of public investment and research resources. Considering these benefits, data sharing has been widely promoted in diverse fields and neuroscience has been no exception to this movement. For all its promise, however, the sharing of human neuroimaging data raises critical ethical and legal issues, such as data privacy. Recently, the heightened risks to data privacy posed by the rapid advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques have made data sharing more challenging; the regulatory landscape around data sharing has also been evolving rapidly. Here we present an in-depth ethical and regulatory analysis that examines how neuroimaging data are currently shared against the backdrop of the relevant regulations and policies in the United States and how advanced software tools and algorithms might undermine subjects' privacy in neuroimaging data sharing. The implications of these novel technological threats to privacy in neuroimaging data sharing practices and policies will also be discussed. We then conclude with a proposal for a legal prohibition against malicious use of neuroscience data as a regulatory mechanism to address privacy risks associated with the data while maximizing the benefits of data sharing and open science practice in the field of neuroscience.
    Keywords:  data privacy; data re-identification; data sharing; data use agreement; neuroethics; neuroimaging
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25803
  12. PLoS One. 2022 ;17(2): e0263725
    Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations.
    Yasemin Özkent.
      Social media has surrounded every area of life, and social media platforms have become indispensable for today's communication. Many journals use social media actively to promote and disseminate new articles. Its use to share the articles contributes many benefits, such as reaching more people and spreading information faster. However, there is no consensus in the studies that to evaluate between tweeted and non-tweeted papers regarding their citation numbers. Therefore, it was aimed to show the effect of social media on the citations of articles in the top ten communication-based journals. For this purpose, this work evaluated original articles published in the top 10 communication journals in 2018. The top 10 communication-based journals were chosen based on SCImago Journal & Country Rank (cited in 2019). Afterward, it was recorded the traditional citation numbers (Google Scholar and Thompson-Reuters Web of Science) and social media exposure of the articles in January 2021 (nearly three years after the articles' publication date). It was assumed that this period would allow the impact of the published articles (the citations and Twitter mentions) to be fully observed. Based on this assessment, a positive correlation between exposure to social media and article citations was observed in this study.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725
  13. Behav Brain Sci. 2022 Feb 10. 45 e26
    Publishing fast and slow: A path toward generalizability in psychology and AI.
    Andrew K Lampinen, Stephanie C Y Chan, Adam Santoro, Felix Hill.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) shares many generalizability challenges with psychology. But the fields publish differently. AI publishes fast, through rapid preprint sharing and conference publications. Psychology publishes more slowly, but creates integrative reviews and meta-analyses. We discuss the complementary advantages of each strategy, and suggest that incorporating both types of strategies could lead to more generalizable research in both fields.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000224
  14. Am J Med Sci. 2022 Feb 02. pii: S0002-9629(22)00060-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    COVID-19 Article Retractions in Journals Indexed in PubMed.
    Christopher J Peterson, Robert Alexander, Kenneth Nugent.
      
    Keywords:  COVID-19; PubMed; publications; retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2022.01.014
  15. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2022 Feb 02.
    The Use of Person-Centered Language in Scientific Research Articles Focused on Autism.
    Chelsea Arnhart, Monika Neale, Claire Collins, Tessa Chesher, Sara Coffey, T Calli Rogers, Ryan Ottwell, Micah Hartwell.
       OBJECTIVE: Individuals with developmental conditions, such as autism, experience stigma, which is reflected in derogatory language and labels. To limit stigma associated with disabilities, government agencies and medical organizations have adopted the use of person-centered language (PCL). This study investigated adherence to PCL guidelines among peer-reviewed research publications focused on autism. In addition, we investigated the co-occurrence of stigmatizing language in articles using person-first language (PFL) and identity-first language (IFL) styles.
    METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed for autism-focused articles from January 2019 to May 2020. Articles from journals with more than 20 search returns were included, and a random sample of 700 publications were screened and examined for inclusion of prespecified, non-PCL terminology.
    RESULTS: Of the 315 publications, 156 (49.5%) were PCL compliant. Articles frequently used PCL and non-PCL terminology concomitantly, and 10% of publications included obsolete nomenclature. A logistic regression model showed the odds were more likely that publications using IFL were more likely to include other stigmatizing terminology than publications using PFL (odds ratio = 2.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-3.58).
    CONCLUSION: Within medical research, the language to describe individuals and populations needs to be used with intentionality and acknowledges that individuals are more than the diagnosis under study. This may reduce the structural stigma that may be implied otherwise. Our study showed that when PFL is used when addressing individuals with autism, other more stigmatizing language is often avoided and is in line with medical education and clinical practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000001038
  16. Ir J Med Sci. 2022 Feb 10.
    Publish or perish: the dilatory fate of "in press" papers in contemporary scientific publications.
    Talal Almas, Josef Finsterer, Kathryn E Haley, David Killilea, Norah Alshareef, Afnan Hassan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-022-02943-w
  17. Eur J Orthod. 2022 Feb 11. pii: cjac001. [Epub ahead of print]
    Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021.
    Filippos Mikelis, Giorgos N Tzanetakis, Despina Koletsi.
       AIM: To assess the extent of publication bias assessment in systematic reviews (SRs) across the orthodontic literature over the last 12 years and to identify the appropriateness of assessment and association with publication characteristics, including year of publication, journal, searching practices within unpublished literature or attempts to contact primary study authors and others.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant articles, since January 2010, until November 2021. We recorded practices interrelated with publication bias assessment, at the SR and meta-analysis level. These pertained to reporting strategies for searching within unpublished literature, attempts to communicate with authors of primary studies and formal assessment of publication bias either graphically or statistically. Potential associations between publication bias assessment practices with variables such as journal, year, methodologist involvement, and others were sought at the meta-analysis level.
    RESULTS: A sum of 289 SRs were ultimately included, with 139 of those incorporating at least one available mathematical synthesis. Efforts to search within unpublished literature were reported in 191 out of 289 Reviews (66.1%), while efforts to communicate with primary study authors were recorded for 150 of 289 of those (51.9%). An appropriate strategy plan to address issues of publication bias, conditional on the number of studies available and the methodology plan reported, was followed in 78 of the 139 meta-analyses (56.1%). Formal publication bias assessment was actually reported in 35 of 139 meta-analyses (25.2%), while only half of those (19/35; 54.3%) followed an appropriately established methodology. Ten of the latter 19 studies detected the presence of publication bias (52.6%). Predictor variables of appropriate publication bias assessment did not reveal any significant effects.
    CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate methodology and rigorous practices for appraisal of publication bias are underreported in SRs within the orthodontic literature since 2010 and up-to-date, while other established methodologies including search strategies for unpublished data or communication with authors appear currently suboptimal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjac001
  18. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021 Jul;8(2): 143-144
    Be careful with abbreviations.
    Richard Ricky Villar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnab074
  19. Behav Brain Sci. 2022 Feb 10. 45 e30
    The crisis from above: Gatekeepers need better standards.
    Sarah R Schiavone, Julia G Bottesini, Simine Vazire.
      Improvements to the validity of psychological science depend upon more than the actions of individual researchers. Editors, journals, and publishers wield considerable power in shaping the incentives that have ushered in the generalizability crisis. These gatekeepers must raise their standards to ensure authors' claims are supported by evidence. Unless gatekeepers change, changes made by individual scientists will not be sustainable.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000546
  20. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2022 Feb 06. 17531934221076996
    The relevance of the Journal.
    Wee Lam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934221076996
  21. Ann Epidemiol. 2022 Feb 08. pii: S1047-2797(22)00005-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Editorial priorities and timeliness of editorial assessment and peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Patrick Sullivan, Ed Trapido, John Acquavella, Richard F Gillum, Russell S Kirby, Michael R Kramer, Suzan L Carmichael, Cara L Frankenfeld, Edwina Yeung, Cory Woodyatt, Stefan Baral.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2022.01.003
  22. J Pediatr Urol. 2022 Jan 23. pii: S1477-5131(22)00017-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    What the editors are reading - Basic science.
    Nikolai Juul, Magdalena Fossum, Hsi-Yang Wu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.12.020
  23. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan 11. 13(1): e00443
    Double-Blind Reviews: A Step Toward Eliminating Unconscious Bias.
    Eugenia Shmidt, Brian C Jacobson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000443
  24. Indian J Orthop. 2022 Feb;56(2): 175-182
    Reviewer's Checklists for Evaluating Scientific Manuscripts.
    Karthik Vishwanathan, Srinivas B S Kambhampati, Lalit Maini.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00602-x
  25. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Feb 08. pii: S0210-5705(22)00056-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Relevance of Scientific Letters.
    Francesc Balaguer, María Carlota Londoño, Pilar Nos, Manuel Alfonso Jiménez Moreno, Luís Téllez, Esteban Sáez González.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2022.02.001
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.