bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–05–22
24 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication.
  2. How Do Researchers Perceive Research Misbehaviors? A Case Study of Indian Researchers.
  3. Parallel publication of articles and congress presentations for industry-sponsored research: strategies for success.
  4. Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution.
  5. Supportive peer review: Why and how to constructively review a paper.
  6. Peer-reviewing and medical publication.
  7. Open research: Enhancing transparency in peer review.
  8. Peer Reviewers and Their Critical Contributions to Scholarly Publishing.
  9. Why STAR Protocols authors make excellent protocol reviewers.
  10. Is It Worth Publishing in a Medical Students' Journal? Insights From a 10-Year Journey.
  11. Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews.
  12. What we are doing to help researchers publish their papers in our journal.
  13. Social networks: a new scenario for scientific dissemination.
  14. [Translated article] Social media: a new scientific communication setting.
  15. Polluting and harassing "otorhinolaryngological" emails: Has the time arrived to talk openly about it?
  16. Identifying Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery: A Prospective Study.
  17. "COVID-19 and its Impact on GSJ & the Publishing Industry".
  18. Technological innovations in scientific journals: the shape of things to come.
  19. Open Accessibility in Education Research: Enhancing the Credibility, Equity, Impact, and Efficiency of Research.
  20. Survey on Open Science Practices in Functional Neuroimaging.
  21. Comparison of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 papers.
  22. LNTgate: How LNT benefited from editorial actions.
  23. Applied Clinical Informatics Journal: A Brief History.
  24. Publishing in PEPTIDES - a 2022 update.
  1. BMC Res Notes. 2022 May 15. 15(1): 177
    Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication.
    Ilinca I Ciubotariu, Gundula Bosch.
      Research integrity, an essential precept of scientific inquiry and discovery, comprises norms such as Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility (the 3R's). Over the past decades, numerous issues have arisen that challenge the reliability of scientific studies, including irreproducibility crises, lack of good scientific principles, and erroneous communications, which have impacted the public's trust in science and its findings. Here, we highlight one important component of research integrity that is often overlooked in the discussion of proposals for improving research quality and promoting robust research; one that spans from the lab bench to the dissemination of scientific work: responsible science communication. We briefly outline the role of education and institutions of higher education in teaching the tenets of good scientific practice and within that, the importance of adequate communications training. In that context, we present our framework of responsible science communication that we live by and teach to our students in courses and workshops that are part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health R3 Center for Innovation in Science Education.
    Keywords:  Institutional graduate education programs; Research integrity; Responsibility; Rigor; Scientific communications training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06065-5
  2. Account Res. 2022 May 18.
    How Do Researchers Perceive Research Misbehaviors? A Case Study of Indian Researchers.
    Ishfaq Ahmad Palla, Mangkhollen Singson.
      Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.
    Keywords:  Authorship Disputes Plagiarism Publish or Perish Qualitative research Research misbehaviors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2078712
  3. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022 May 20. 1-7
    Parallel publication of articles and congress presentations for industry-sponsored research: strategies for success.
    Kristine Wilhelm Schuler, Meera I Kodukulla, Charles I Rosenblum, Nataline Meinhardt, Rhyomi C Sellnow, Todd Parker.
      Recent increases in the practice of parallel publication, during which a peer-reviewed manuscript is published concurrently with the first dissemination of the same key data at a medical congress as a late-breaking abstract, have highlighted substantial value for this method of publication. Parallel publication can increase access to new clinical information for healthcare providers and patients, as well as promote engagement and reach of the publication and presentation. As the practice becomes more common, there is a need for strategies to address the multiple challenges involved in the development process, such as shortened timelines, journal and congress policies, and stakeholder alignment. We surveyed journals, congresses, and publication professionals on the challenges of parallel publication and recommendations for success. Recommendations from journal editors and congress officials included the importance of adhering to timelines and early communication. Insights from a community of publication professionals showed that timelines and the author review process were among the key challenges of parallel publication development and stressed the importance of clear roles and expectations for authors. To provide real-world insights, we present 3 case studies of successful parallel publication development, highlighting the crucial role of journal selection, planning around data availability, and adapting to unpredictable circumstances. The recommendations described here may provide publication professionals with strategies to successfully plan, execute, and carry out parallel publication.
    Keywords:  Parallel publication; late-breaking abstracts; medical affairs; publishing; simultaneous publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2022.2078102
  4. Proc Biol Sci. 2022 May 25. 289(1975): 20212780
    Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution.
    Dominique G Roche, Ilias Berberi, Fares Dhane, Félix Lauzon, Sandrine Soeharjono, Roslyn Dakin, Sandra A Binning.
      Many leading journals in ecology and evolution now mandate open data upon publication. Yet, there is very little oversight to ensure the completeness and reusability of archived datasets, and we currently have a poor understanding of the factors associated with high-quality data sharing. We assessed 362 open datasets linked to first- or senior-authored papers published by 100 principal investigators (PIs) in the fields of ecology and evolution over a period of 7 years to identify predictors of data completeness and reusability (data archiving quality). Datasets scored low on these metrics: 56.4% were complete and 45.9% were reusable. Data reusability, but not completeness, was slightly higher for more recently archived datasets and PIs with less seniority. Journal open data policy, PI gender and PI corresponding author status were unrelated to data archiving quality. However, PI identity explained a large proportion of the variance in data completeness (27.8%) and reusability (22.0%), indicating consistent inter-individual differences in data sharing practices by PIs across time and contexts. Several PIs consistently shared data of either high or low archiving quality, but most PIs were inconsistent in how well they shared. One explanation for the high intra-individual variation we observed is that PIs often conduct research through students and postdoctoral researchers, who may be responsible for the data collection, curation and archiving. Levels of data literacy vary among trainees and PIs may not regularly perform quality control over archived files. Our findings suggest that research data management training and culture within a PI's group are likely to be more important determinants of data archiving quality than other factors such as a journal's open data policy. Greater incentives and training for individual researchers at all career stages could improve data sharing practices and enhance data transparency and reusability.
    Keywords:  data sharing; fair data; metascience; open science; public data archiving; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2780
  5. Pediatr Nephrol. 2022 May 17.
    Supportive peer review: Why and how to constructively review a paper.
    Lesley Rees, Joseph Flynn.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-022-05535-z
  6. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2022 May 16. pii: gfac183. [Epub ahead of print]
    Peer-reviewing and medical publication.
    Denis Fouque.
      
    Keywords:  editor; kindness; medical publication; peer-review; reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfac183
  7. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2022 Jun;35(3): 421-424
    Open research: Enhancing transparency in peer review.
    Simon C Langley-Evans.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13007
  8. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2022 May 20.
    Peer Reviewers and Their Critical Contributions to Scholarly Publishing.
    Melissa D Avery.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13373
  9. STAR Protoc. 2022 Jun 17. 3(2): 101395
    Why STAR Protocols authors make excellent protocol reviewers.
    Guillaume Blot, Leila Shokri, Shawnna Buttery.
      When researchers submit a protocol for peer review and publication, they receive feedback from reviewers to help improve the usability of the protocol. These authors can be the perfect peer reviewers helping propel research forward. They can use their technical expertise and sharpened writing skills to help improve the main aspects of published protocols, namely their clarity and reproducibility. This backstory chronicles the journey of Dr. Guillaume Blot, from a junior researcher and author to a protocol reviewer. For complete details, please refer to Blot et al. (2021).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xpro.2022.101395
  10. Int J Med Stud. 2021 ;9(4): 252-254
    Is It Worth Publishing in a Medical Students' Journal? Insights From a 10-Year Journey.
    Francisco J Bonilla-Escobar, Ciara Egan, Mihnea-Alexandru Găman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2021.1309
  11. BMC Res Notes. 2022 May 19. 15(1): 184
    Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews.
    Yuki Mori, Kaito Takashima, Kohei Ueda, Kyoshiro Sasaki, Yuki Yamada.
      One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents-research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications-for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken concurrently for a research protocol before running the study. After the protocol is approved in principle through these review processes, a funding review will take place, and the researchers will begin their research. Following the experiments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted on a completed version of the paper again, including the results and discussions (i.e., the full paper), and the full paper will be published once it has passed the second review. This paper provides the brief process of the trinity review system and discusses the need for and benefits of the proposed system. Although the trinity review system only applies to a few appropriate disciplines, it helps improve reproducibility and integrity.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Peer review; Registered Reports; Research ethics; Research grants; Review system
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06043-x
  12. J Int Med Res. 2022 05;50(5): 3000605221100927
    What we are doing to help researchers publish their papers in our journal.
    Gordon Mallarkey, Matthew Thorne.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605221100927
  13. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2022 May-Jun;66(3):pii: S1888-4415(22)00110-2. [Epub ahead of print]66(3): 157-158
    Social networks: a new scenario for scientific dissemination.
    Cristina Ojeda-Thies.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2022.05.001
  14. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2022 May-Jun;66(3):pii: S1888-4415(22)00112-6. [Epub ahead of print]66(3): T157-T158
    [Translated article] Social media: a new scientific communication setting.
    Cristina Ojeda-Thies.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2022.05.002
  15. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2022 May 14. pii: S1879-7296(22)00035-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Polluting and harassing "otorhinolaryngological" emails: Has the time arrived to talk openly about it?
    A Mudry.
      Over the last few years, unwanted emails daily fill the mailboxes of many scientists. Usually, they ask the recipient to send a paying article to a journal, generally with a deadline of two weeks. Now the time is coming to openly discuss and mention such kinds of demand and to name the journals behind them. The aim of this paper is thus to present, using some selected examples collected during five days (14-19 October, 2021), the dangers of responding to such a request and to specify the names of the journals concerned. Three otorhinolaryngological journals are particularly discussed: Journal of Otology and Rhinology, American Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, and Global Journal of Otolaryngology. In selecting some pertinent papers, it is easy to demonstrate that these three journals can easily be considered as predatory journals. Certainly, many other predatory, otorhinolaryngological journals exist. Hopefully, this paper will finally open a serious and scientific discussion about these predatory otorhinolaryngological journals, to definitively establish an available and valid list.
    Keywords:  Emails; Journals; Otorhinolaryngology; Predatory
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2022.03.004
  16. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2022 May;30(2): 144-150
    Identifying Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery: A Prospective Study.
    Matteo Gallo, Lucas Gallo, Sadek Mowakket, Jessica Murphy, Eric Duku, Achilles Thoma.
       Background: Predatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery.
    Methods: Unsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study.
    Results: In total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science.
    Conclusions: Of the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.
    Keywords:  open-access journals; plastic surgery; predatory journals; publications; surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503211002456
  17. Global Spine J. 2022 Jun;12(5): 755
    "COVID-19 and its Impact on GSJ & the Publishing Industry".
    Jeffrey C Wang, Karsten Wiechert, Jens R Chapman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221100976
  18. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2022 May-Jun;88(3):pii: 10.25259/IJDVL_413_2022. [Epub ahead of print]88(3): 279-281
    Technological innovations in scientific journals: the shape of things to come.
    Saumya Panda.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/IJDVL_413_2022
  19. Educ Psychol. 2021 ;56(2): 110-121
    Open Accessibility in Education Research: Enhancing the Credibility, Equity, Impact, and Efficiency of Research.
    Jesse I Fleming, Sarah E Wilson, Sara A Hart, William J Therrien, Bryan G Cook.
      Openness is a foundational principle in science. Making the tools and products of scientific research openly accessible advances core aims and values of education researchers, such as the credibility, equity, impact, and efficiency of research. The digital revolution has expanded opportunities for providing greater access to research. In this article, we examine three open-science practices-open data and code, open materials, and open access-that education researchers can use to increase accessibility to the tools and products of research in the field. For each open-science practice, we discuss what the practice is and how it works, its primary benefits, some important limitations and challenges, and two thorny issues.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593
  20. Neuroimage. 2022 May 17. pii: S1053-8119(22)00425-6. [Epub ahead of print] 119306
    Survey on Open Science Practices in Functional Neuroimaging.
    Christian Paret, Nike Unverhau, Franklin Feingold, Russell A Poldrack, Madita Stirner, Christian Schmahl, Maurizio Sicorello.
      Replicability and reproducibility of scientific findings is paramount for sustainable progress in neuroscience. Preregistration of the hypotheses and methods of an empirical study before analysis, the sharing of primary research data, and compliance with data standards such as the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS), are considered effective practices to secure progress and to substantiate quality of research. We investigated the current level of adoption of open science practices in neuroimaging and the difficulties that prevent researchers from using them. Email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to addresses received through a PubMed search of human functional magnetic resonance imaging studies that were published between 2010 and 2020. 283 persons completed the questionnaire. Although half of the participants were experienced with preregistration, the willingness to preregister studies in the future was modest. The majority of participants had experience with the sharing of primary neuroimaging data. Most of the participants were interested in implementing a standardized data structure such as BIDS in their labs. Based on demographic variables, we compared participants on seven subscales, which had been generated through factor analysis. Exploratory analyses found that experienced researchers at lower career level had higher fear of being transparent and researchers with residence in the EU had a higher need for data governance. Additionally, researchers at medical faculties as compared to other university faculties reported a more unsupportive supervisor with regards to open science practices and a higher need for data governance. The results suggest growing adoption of open science practices but also highlight a number of important impediments.
    Keywords:  data sharing; fMRI; metascience; neuroimaging; open science; preregistration; replication; reproducibility; research methods; robustness; validity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119306
  21. Gac Sanit. 2022 Apr 27. pii: S0213-9111(22)00103-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Comparison of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 papers.
    Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mónica Pérez-Ríos.
       OBJECTIVE: The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ.
    METHOD: We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted.
    RESULTS: We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10).
    CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved.
    Keywords:  Case-control studies; Estudios de casos y controles; Research ethics; SARS-CoV-2; Ética en la investigación
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2022.03.006
  22. Chem Biol Interact. 2022 May 17. pii: S0009-2797(22)00184-3. [Epub ahead of print] 109979
    LNTgate: How LNT benefited from editorial actions.
    Edward J Calabrese, James Giordano.
      This paper illustrates how the acceptance of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model was unethically advocated and advanced both by key scientists within the radiation genetics community, and by editorial practices in Science, a leading international scientific journal. Four key papers became the cornerstones in the acceptance of the LNT model. In the publication process of these papers, editorial decisions to circumvent peer review occurred in at least two cases. As well, the summarized data of one paper were never shared with the scientific community and remain missing to date. Publication of a paper in Science on which a senior editor of the journal was a co-author is alleged to have intentionally falsified the research record (BEAR Genetics Panel). These findings raise the question of whether foundational papers for major contemporary regulatory policy (i.e., LNT/cancer risk assessment) that lack scientific legitimacy, as identified herein, should be retracted. These findings also should serve as the basis for considerable ethical concern, as well as a prompt for ongoing ethical diligence and rigor in the conduct and publication of scientific research.
    Keywords:  Ethics; LNT model; Scientific misconduct; Scientific publication; Threshold model
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2022.109979
  23. Appl Clin Inform. 2022 Mar;13(2): 516-520
    Applied Clinical Informatics Journal: A Brief History.
    Christoph U Lehmann, Marion J Ball, Reinhold Haux, Jenna S Lehmann.
      In 2009, Schattauer Verlag in Stuttgart, Germany first published the Applied Clinical Informatics (ACI) Journal. ACI has served since its inception as an official journal of the International Medical Informatics Association. Later, the American Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation for Medical Informatics named ACI as an official journal. This manuscript describes the history of the journal from its inception to present day including publication measures, challenges, and successes.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1749165
  24. Peptides. 2022 May 13. pii: S0196-9781(22)00078-X. [Epub ahead of print] 170812
    Publishing in PEPTIDES - a 2022 update.
    J Michael Conlon, Karl-Heinz Herzig.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2022.170812
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.