bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒04‒03
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. PLoS Biol. 2022 Mar;20(3): e3001611
    PLOS Biology Staff Editors
      Pre-registration promises to address some of the problems with traditional peer-review. As we publish our first Registered Report, we take stock of two years of submissions and the future possibilities of this approach.
  2. Perm J. 2021 Nov 29. 25
      The open access publishing model provides readers of all backgrounds access to articles free of charge. To cover the costs of open access, however, many journals now charge substantial article processing fees. This has inadvertently created yet another barrier for trainees to engage in scholarly activity. Herein, we describe the issue, review the literature, and provide suggestions for addressing this barrier with the focus on the neurology specialty.
  3. Lancet. 2022 03 26. pii: S0140-6736(22)00107-6. [Epub ahead of print]399(10331): 1226
  4. Eur J Public Health. 2022 Apr 01. pii: ckac033. [Epub ahead of print]
  5. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022 Apr;3(2): e12680
      Objective: Although current ethical standards mandate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by authors of peer-reviewed publications, it is unknown whether disclosure affects a manuscript's fate. Our objective was to identify associations between author COI disclosure and editorial decision to publish.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional observational study of editorial decisions for original research and brief research report manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine between June 2014 and January 2018 using data from the journal's editorial decision software and data from a prior study that characterized author COI for the same manuscripts. Outcomes of interest included final editor decision to publish (primary), initial editor decision, and number of revisions. We compared outcomes for manuscripts with COI versus those without and by type of COI (commercial/government/other).
    Results: Out of 1312 manuscripts in the sample, 65.1% had no COI declarations, and 34.9% had one or more. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 13.5% (115/854) for articles without COI and 26.9% (123/458) for those with COI. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 19.8% (19/96) for articles with commercial COI only versus 33.3% (35/105) for those with government COI only.
    Conclusions: Articles with author-reported COI were more likely to be published than those without such a declaration. Additionally, results suggest that reports of government COI are associated with improved chance of publication. Authorities should consider relaxing COI requirements temporarily to allow investigators to perform larger scale, randomized controlled studies of the impact of mandated COI disclosure.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; conflict of interest; editorial policy; emergency medicine; peer review; research ethics
  6. Heliyon. 2022 Mar;8(3): e09123
      Publication ethics principles became one of the main aspects of conducting scientific research and presenting its results. Publication ethics challenges cover a wide range of problems of varying importance that involve all participants of publication processes: authors, academic authorities, peer-reviewers, editorial board members, publishers, and funders. All stakeholders put efforts to make modern science and publication processes ethical. This goal is achieved first of all through detailed criteria of publication ethics and extensive author guidelines, as well as by increasing the level of awareness of these criteria in educational programs aimed at prophylactics of research misconduct. However, there is a need for technical facilities for detecting different cases of violation of ethical principles, and bibliometric methods are one of the most promising approaches. The paper summarizes the authors' recent studies on bibliometric perspectives for detecting plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, and official misconduct among editorial board members.
    Keywords:  Academic journals; Academic libraries; Authorship; Bibliometrics; Plagiarism detection; Publication ethics
  7. PLoS Biol. 2022 Mar 28. 20(3): e3001606
      A global working group has developed recommendations for the responsible handling of the growing range of ethics cases related to data publication, but further community work is needed toward a responsible and cohesive data publishing ecosystem.
  8. Prog Transplant. 2022 Mar 29. 15269248221089816
    Keywords:  peer review; review guidelines
  9. Stroke. 2022 Mar 28. STROKEAHA122036142
    Keywords:  academic publishing; career development; medical education; peer review; scientific writing
  10. Development. 2022 Apr 01. pii: dev200710. [Epub ahead of print]149(7):
  11. Arch Physiother. 2022 Mar 31. 12(1): 10
      BACKGROUND: Lack of effective peer-review process of predatory journals, resulting in more ambiguity in reporting, language and incomplete descriptions of processes might have an impact on the reliability of PEDro scale. The aim of this investigation was to compare the reliability of the PEDro scale when evaluating the methodological quality of RCTs published in predatory (PJs) and non-predatory (NPJs) journals, to more confidently select interventions appropriate for application to practice.METHODS: A selected sample of RCTs was independently rated by two raters randomly selected among 11 physical therapists. Reliability of each item of the PEDro scale and the total PEDro score were assessed by Cohen's kappa statistic and percent of agreement and by Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), respectively. The Chi-square test was used to compare the rate of agreement between PJs and NPJs.
    RESULTS: A total number of 298 RCTs were assessed (119 published in NPJs). Cronbach's alphas were .704 and .845 for trials published in PJs and NPJs, respectively. Kappa values for individual scale items ranged from .14 to .73 for PJs and from .09 to .70 for NPJs. The ICC was .537 (95% CI .425-.634) and .729 (95% CI .632-.803), and SEM was 1.055 and 0.957 for PJs and NPJs, respectively. Inter-rater reliability in discriminating between studies of moderate to high and low quality was higher for NPJs (k = .57) than for PJs (k = .28).
    CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability of PEDro score of RCTs published in PJs is lower than that of trials published in NPJs, likely also due to ambiguous language and incomplete reporting. This might make the detection of risk of bias more difficult when selecting interventions appropriate for application to practice or producing secondary literature.
    Keywords:  Assessment; Periodical; Physical Therapy Specialty; Randomized controlled trial; Reproducibility of Results
  12. Nursing. 2022 Apr 01. 52(4): 41-45
      ABSTRACT: Nursing journals offer important content on new practices and approaches to care. Unfortunately, predatory journals that use unsavory publication practices have emerged. This article shares guidance to help nurses effectively appraise information and their sources, distinguish predatory from legitimate journals, and conduct due diligence.
  13. Clin Trials. 2022 Apr 01. 17407745221087456
      BACKGROUND/AIMS: Informed clinical guidance and health policy relies on clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers finding comprehensive clinical evidence and linking registrations and publications of the same clinical trial. To support the finding and linking of trial evidence, the World Health Organization, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ask researchers to provide the trial registration number in their publication and a reference to the publication in the registration. This practice costs researchers minimal effort and makes evidence synthesis more thorough and efficient. Nevertheless, trial evidence appears inadequately linked, and the extent of trial links in Germany remains unquantified. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate links between registrations and publications across clinical trials conducted by German university medical centers and registered in or the German Clinical Trials Registry. Secondary aims are to develop an automated pipeline that can be applied to other cohorts of trial registrations and publications, and to provide stakeholders, from trialists to registries, with guidance to improve trial links.METHODS: We used automated strategies to download and extract data from trial registries, PubMed, and results publications for a cohort of registered, published trials conducted across German university medical centers and completed between 2009 and 2017. We implemented regular expressions to detect and classify publication identifiers in registrations, and trial registration numbers in publication metadata, abstracts, and full-texts.
    RESULTS: In breach of long-standing guidelines, 75% (1,418) of trials failed to reference trial registration numbers in both the abstract and full-text of the journal article in which the results were published. Furthermore, 50% (946) of trial registrations did not contain links to their results publications. Seventeen percent (327) of trials had no links, so that associating registration and publication required manual searching and screening. Overall, trials in were better linked than those in the German Clinical Trials Registry; PubMed and registry infrastructures appear to drive this difference. Trial registration numbers were more likely to be transferred to PubMed metadata from abstracts for trials than for German Clinical Trials Registry trials. Most (78%, 662/849) registrations with a publication link were automatically indexed from PubMed metadata, which is not possible in the German Clinical Trials Registry.
    CONCLUSIONS: German university medical centers have not comprehensively linked trial registrations and publications, despite established recommendations. This shortcoming threatens the quality of evidence synthesis and medical practice, and burdens researchers with manually searching and linking trial data. Researchers could easily improve this by copy-and-pasting references between their trial registrations and publications. Other stakeholders could build on this practice, for example, PubMed could capture additional trial registration numbers using automated strategies (like those developed in this study), and the German Clinical Trials Registry could automatically index publications from PubMed.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; meta-research; registration; reporting; research transparency
  14. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2022 Apr;pii: e00146-21. [Epub ahead of print]23(1):
      Since March 2020, in-person science competitions have been cancelled or moved to a virtual space. This reality has encouraged teachers and students to find alternative ways to disseminate student research and participate in a scientific community. Participating in the peer review and publication of one's research offers one such alternative. The Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI) is a free, online, peer-reviewed science journal specifically for middle school and high school students. JEI provides students the opportunity to engage with professional scientists through the peer review process and share their research with a broad audience, all on a remote platform. This article describes resources that are freely available to help teachers navigate the peer review and publication processes and guide their students through the successful completion of submission and publication of their research papers. Overall, students perceive the experience as attainable and found the JEI resources useful in completing their papers. Importantly, students expressed that the experience of publication increased their confidence and interest in STEM.
    Keywords:  peer review; publication; science communication; science research; science writing
  15. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2022 Feb 28. pii: S2530-0180(22)00024-5. [Epub ahead of print]
      INTRODUCTION: A case report is a scientific article describing one or more patients with unusual clinical presentations. In recent years, the number of case reports in publications has decreased. In this study, we analyze the publication of case reports in journals of Endocrinology during the years 2010, 2015 and 2019.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pubmed web was browsed for clinical journals of Endocrinology, those published in English and/or Spanish being selected, and the relevant variables analyzed.
    RESULTS: Of 84 analyzed journals, 51 accepted cases for publication, 29 did not, and 4 did so only in exceptional cases. In 2010, 11,754 articles were published, of which 709 were clinical cases (6.9% of the total); in 2015, a total of 14,594 articles of which 655 were clinical cases (5.8% of the total); and in 2019 a total of 14,110 articles, of which 472 were clinical cases (4.6% of the total). In journals demanding payment for the publishing of clinical cases, case reports represented 9% of all articles, and in free journals, 3% (P < 0.05).
    CONCLUSION: There has been a decline in publication of case reports in journals of Endocrinology in recent years, both in absolute and relative terms. Even though the cases described by these reports are, by definition, exceptional, the decline of their publication implies a significant loss of scientific information and clinical knowledge regarding certain pathologies.
    Keywords:  Case report; Caso clínico; Clinical investigator; Endocrinology; Endocrinología; Investigador clínico; Journal; Publicación; Publication; Revista
  16. West J Emerg Med. 2021 Jun 29. 22(4): 958-962
      INTRODUCTION: Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals.METHODS: We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications.
    RESULTS: The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts.
    CONCLUSION: We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.