bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–03–27
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide.
  2. Open Access Redefined: Survey Data and Literature Study on the Impact of Sci-Hub in Orthopaedic Research.
  3. The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer.
  4. The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.
  5. Measures of Impact for Journals, Articles, and Authors.
  6. Reviewer feedback for abstract submissions to the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting: a pilot project.
  7. The Price of Publishing: An Investigation of the Open Access Landscape in Plastic Surgery.
  8. The Recent Decisions of the Turkish Council of Higher Education on Predatory Journals.
  9. Basics of Writing Review Articles.
  10. What Is a Review Article and What Are Its Purpose, Attributes, and Goal(s).
  11. Editorial: The future direction for the publication of literature reviews in the Journal of Advanced Nursing.
  12. How to publish a great scientific paper - A guide for publishing successfully in Veterinary Parasitology.
  13. Writing a successful original research paper for a radiology journal.
  14. Readability-The Key to Publishing Science.
  15. The Under-representation and Stagnation of Female, Black, and Hispanic Authorship in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.
  16. Retractions of academic publications in psychiatry.
  17. To Grant You an Edge: Part 1. General Strategies for Writing Competitive Biomedical Research Proposals.
  18. To Grant You an Edge: Part 3. Considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals in the biomedical sciences.
  19. To Grant You an Edge: Part 2. Tactical Tips for Addressing Specific Aspects of Biomedical Research Proposals.
  20. Publication addiction during COVID-19 pandemic - A rising boon or a bane.
  21. Online presence of biomedical researchers: Where to maintain a profile?
  22. Journal standards.
  1. BMC Res Notes. 2022 Mar 22. 15(1): 116
    What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide.
    Olivia S Kowalczyk, Alexandra Lautarescu, Elisabet Blok, Lorenza Dall'Aglio, Samuel J Westwood.
      Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that-like all researchers-senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Funding; Publishing; Reform; Replication; Reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05999-0
  2. Z Orthop Unfall. 2022 Mar 21.
    Open Access Redefined: Survey Data and Literature Study on the Impact of Sci-Hub in Orthopaedic Research.
    Martin Gathen, Davide Cucchi, Koroush Kabir, Kristian Welle, Max Jaenisch, Tom Rainer Jansen, Thomas Martin Randau.
       BACKGROUND: Since Alexandra Elbanyan founded Sci-Hub in 2011, the website has been used by a growing number of researchers worldwide. Sci-Hub is a so-called shadow library or guerrilla open access format bypassing publishers' paywalls, giving everyone free access to scientific papers. Until today, there have been no publications about usage by orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of Sci-Hub or other "pirate sites" and how it may influence their work.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of four university hospitals in Germany and Europe were consulted using a standardised questionnaire containing multiple items about the use and evaluation of Sci-Hub. In addition, the Medline and Cochrane databases were screened for all studies related to Sci-Hub. Two reviewers independently reviewed all articles and the references of these articles.
    RESULTS: Of all orthopaedic surgeons consulted, 69% knew of Sci-Hub and 66.7% used it on a regular basis. Of the younger participants (< 45 years old), 77% knew the webpage, while only 25% of older participants (> 45 years old) knew the webpage. Ninety percent found the quality of their citation and research had been enhanced since using Sci-Hub. On a scale of 1 to 10, user-friendliness was rated with a mean rating of 7.58 (95% CI: 7.262-7.891). Ethical or legal concerns among users seem mixed. On a scale of 1 (no concerns) to 5 (many concerns), the mean score was 2.39 (95% CI: 2.154-2.615). Of doctors using Sci-Hub, 89% would recommend it to other colleagues.
    CONCLUSION: The quality and number of articles in Sci-Hub is outstanding, and the rate of young researchers using the website is high. The most important shift in literature research for decades is a phenomenon mostly used by young researchers and is not the subject of current research itself. Sci-Hub may have already changed how orthopaedic research works.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1773-1268
  3. Nature. 2022 Mar;603(7902): 568-571
    The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer.
    Diana Kwon.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Ethics; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00793-1
  4. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022 Mar 02. 11(3): 25
    The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.
    Marco Zarbin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.3.25
  5. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Mar 23.
    Measures of Impact for Journals, Articles, and Authors.
    Elizabeth M Suelzer, Jeffrey L Jackson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07475-8
  6. Acad Pediatr. 2022 Mar 19. pii: S1876-2859(22)00085-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reviewer feedback for abstract submissions to the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting: a pilot project.
    Alan R Schroeder, Lauren G Solan, Derek Williams, Belinda Thomas, Catha Smith, Glenda Minshew, Daniel A Rauch.
       PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate a pilot project to provide reviewer comments to authors who submitted abstracts to the Hospital-based medicine topic area for the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2021 annual meeting METHODS: : Abstract reviewers were encouraged via email to include reviewer comments for authors in their abstract reviews. Unedited comments were emailed to authors shortly after the abstract decision notifications were sent. We quantified the number of reviewers who commented per abstract. Additionally, we surveyed authors and reviewers to evaluate the perceived impact of the pilot project.
    RESULTS: For 123 abstracts submitted to the Hospital-based medicine topic area, every abstract received comments from at least one reviewer, and a median (IQR) of 4 (3-5) reviewers commented per abstract. The response rates for the author and reviewer surveys were 61/114 (54%) and 54/84 (64%), respectively, and both groups of respondents generally favored the pilot program. The majority of authors (59%) made changes to their project based on the feedback provided and 96% reported that they would like to continue to receive reviewer feedback for future PAS abstract submissions. Reviewers reported spending a mean of 11 minutes reviewing each abstract. Most (85%) felt that they spent the same or slightly more (1-25%) time reviewing than in prior years. Multiple open-ended comments were provided, largely positive.
    CONCLUSION: A pilot program to incorporate reviewer feedback into abstract decision notification for a large national research meeting was successful. This approach should be considered for future meetings to enhance this integral component of academic development.
    Keywords:  abstract; peer review; scientific meeting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.02.018
  7. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Mar 21.
    The Price of Publishing: An Investigation of the Open Access Landscape in Plastic Surgery.
    Pooja S Yesantharao, Chao Long, Justin M Sacks, Gordon K Lee, Rahim S Nazerali.
       BACKGROUND: Open access publishing in plastic surgery has rapidly gained traction in the past decade. This study investigated the digital landscape of plastic surgery open access publishing.
    METHODS: This was a cross-sectional bibliometric investigation of plastic surgery-focused journals. Three publication models were investigated: subscription-only journals, hybrid journals offering both paywalled and open access publishing, and open access-only journals.
    RESULTS: Eighty-two journals were investigated. In 2010, open access journals comprised 18 percent of all plastic surgery journals online, subscription journals comprised 79 percent, and hybrid journals comprised 3 percent. Conversely, in 2020, open access journals comprised 55 percent of all journals, hybrid journals comprised 45 percent, and there were no subscription-only journals. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for article type/content demonstrated that open access articles from hybrid journals [beta coefficient, 1.3; F(4, 18) = 790; p = 0.05] and high-quality open access journals [beta coefficient, 0.9; F(4, 19) = 738; p = 0.04] were significantly positively associated with number of full-text views. Although impact factor and article processing charges were positively correlated [Pearson correlation coefficient: r(25) = 0.39, p = 0.04] for open access publishing, some high-quality open access journals were found to offer fee waivers/free publishing. Lastly, level of evidence offered by articles from open access versus hybrid journals differed.
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study highlighted important distinctions between trustworthy and predatory journals offering open access publishing in plastic surgery. Open access publishing in trustworthy sources offers greater visibility and is not necessarily cost-prohibitive, but some open access journals can be limited in scope (i.e., less coverage of subspecialty topics) and quality of content. Study findings were used to generate recommendations for navigating open access publishing in plastic surgery.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009016
  8. Balkan Med J. 2022 Mar 14. 39(2): 81-82
    The Recent Decisions of the Turkish Council of Higher Education on Predatory Journals.
    Zafer Koçak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2022.21022022
  9. Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2022 ;59(1): 1-2
    Basics of Writing Review Articles.
    Almıla Erol.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29399/npa.28093
  10. Psychother Psychosom. 2022 Mar 21. 1-4
    What Is a Review Article and What Are Its Purpose, Attributes, and Goal(s).
    Richard Balon.
      
    Keywords:  Goals of review article; Medical writing; Review article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1159/000522385
  11. J Adv Nurs. 2022 Mar 24.
    Editorial: The future direction for the publication of literature reviews in the Journal of Advanced Nursing.
    Helen Aveyard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15206
  12. Vet Parasitol. 2022 Mar 12. pii: S0304-4017(22)00051-6. [Epub ahead of print] 109697
    How to publish a great scientific paper - A guide for publishing successfully in Veterinary Parasitology.
    Michael P Reichel, Andrew W Greer, Martin K Nielsen, Theo de Waal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109697
  13. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Mar 17. pii: S2211-5684(22)00051-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Writing a successful original research paper for a radiology journal.
    Philippe Soyer, Michael N Patlas, David A Bluemke.
      
    Keywords:  Biomedical research; Medical writing; Publishing; Radiology; Writing standards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.03.002
  14. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 Mar-Apr;26(2):26(2): 125-126
    Readability-The Key to Publishing Science.
    Kirk Barber.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754221085366
  15. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022 Mar 21.
    The Under-representation and Stagnation of Female, Black, and Hispanic Authorship in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.
    Moustafa Abdalla, Mohamed Abdalla, Salwa Abdalla, Mohamed Saad, David S Jones, Scott H Podolsky.
      Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethnic disparities; Gender disparities; Medical journals; Racial disparities
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-022-01280-z
  16. Asian J Psychiatr. 2022 Mar 12. pii: S1876-2018(22)00083-1. [Epub ahead of print]71 103085
    Retractions of academic publications in psychiatry.
    Wei Bai, Sha Sha, Teris Cheung, Zhaohui Su, Chee H Ng, Yu-Tao Xiang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103085
  17. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2022 Mar 24.
    To Grant You an Edge: Part 1. General Strategies for Writing Competitive Biomedical Research Proposals.
    Douglas R Seals.
      
    Keywords:  career development; grant writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00077.2022
  18. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2022 Mar 24.
    To Grant You an Edge: Part 3. Considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals in the biomedical sciences.
    Douglas R Seals.
      
    Keywords:  career development; grant writing; professional skills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00149.2022
  19. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2022 Mar 24.
    To Grant You an Edge: Part 2. Tactical Tips for Addressing Specific Aspects of Biomedical Research Proposals.
    Douglas R Seals.
      
    Keywords:  career development; grant writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00078.2022
  20. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Apr;70(4): 1402-1403
    Publication addiction during COVID-19 pandemic - A rising boon or a bane.
    Bharat Gurnani, Kirandeep Kaur, Manas Nath.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_386_22
  21. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Apr;70(4): 1428-1429
    Online presence of biomedical researchers: Where to maintain a profile?
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_280_22
  22. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2022 Mar;27(1): 1-5
    Journal standards.
    Rachel H Ellaway.
      Taking the recent revision of the Journal's 'Standards for an Acceptable Manuscript' as a starting point, the Editor considers the meaning, durability, and implications of academic standards for journals in health professions education and those seeking to publish their work within them.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10106-w
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.