bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–06–26
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. What do editors expect from authors in medical research?
  2. Article-processing charges as a barrier for science in low-to-medium income regions.
  3. Warning Signs of Predatory Open Access Journals And Pseudo Solicitations: Advice to Avoid Literature Pollution.
  4. Could artificial intelligence hijack author contributions?
  5. Hijacked-journal tracker helps researchers to spot scam websites.
  6. The continuing challenge of paper-mills to publishing in the biological sciences.
  7. Facilitating preprint sharing in the health sciences.
  8. Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists.
  9. COVID-19 as a source of poor publications.
  10. How we decline manuscripts.
  11. Publishing student-led discoveries in genetics.
  12. Peer-reviewed process: is everything valid?
  13. The Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Conundrum.
  14. Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research.
  15. Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study.
  16. [Why publish Case Reports? Analysis of their contribution to science].
  17. Navigating the current landscape of scientific publishing - the Molecular Oncology perspective.
  18. A Critical Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Ethical Protections in Medical Papers Published in Turkey.
  19. Development of a Guideline to Enhance the Reporting of Concept Mapping Research: Study Protocol.
  20. How can we get more open access to medical studies? Simple, let's take the green road.
  21. Dr. Lindberg and scholarly publishing.
  22. Scientific Publishing and the Tobacco Industry.
  23. Do we need a scientific journal?
  24. The Role of Visual Abstracts in the Dissemination of Medical Research.
  25. Writing your first paper Part 2: Submission, review, and post-publication.
  26. Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature.
  27. Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing.
  28. Editorial: Streamlining the process of submissions to Immunology.
  1. J Orthop. 2022 Jul-Aug;32:32 146-150
    What do editors expect from authors in medical research?
    Karthikeyan P Iyengar, Vijay Kumar Jain, Raju Vaishya.
       Introduction: Manuscript preparation, submission, and appropriate revision can be difficult tasks. Any lack in these processes can lead to manuscript rejection and author's dissatisfaction.
    Methods: We have searched the PubMed and Google scholar and collected information regarding causes of manuscript rejection, correct steps and order of manuscript preparation.
    Results: We have provided the set format to publish article, tips and tricks of making a research paper for publication. We also have provided guide for the authors to provide essential enclosures during submission process.
    Conclusion: This review focuses on conventional "Tips and Tricks" that might guide aspiring authors through the submission process and serve as a "Blueprint" for publishing scientific manuscripts in medical journals.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Biomedical research; Journalism; Language; Manuscript writing; Medical; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.06.004
  2. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2022 ;pii: S0074-02762022000100863. [Epub ahead of print]117 e220064
    Article-processing charges as a barrier for science in low-to-medium income regions.
    Marcio L Rodrigues, Wilson Savino, Samuel Goldenberg.
      It is widely accepted that science is universal by nature. However, to make science universal, access to research findings is imperative. The open access model of publication of academic articles was established and consolidated during the last two decades. However, most of the open access journals apply article-processing charges (APCs), which can cost more than USD 10,000.00. In regions where support for research is scarce, these funds are usually not available. Similar problems occur in countries with weak economies and, consequently, unfavorable currency conversion rates. This situation reveals a barrier to the alleged universality of science and the access to research findings. In this manuscript, the barriers faced by authors and institutions from low-to-middle income regions to cover APCs and make their science freely available are discussed and illustrated with recent numbers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760220064
  3. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022 Apr;10(4): 299-300
    Warning Signs of Predatory Open Access Journals And Pseudo Solicitations: Advice to Avoid Literature Pollution.
    Amir Kachooei, E Carlos Rodriguez-Merchan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22038/abjs.2022.20015
  4. Nature. 2022 Jun;606(7915): 653
    Could artificial intelligence hijack author contributions?
    Akira Akabayashi, Eisuke Nakazawa, Hiroyasu Ino.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01697-w
  5. Nature. 2022 Jun 22.
    Hijacked-journal tracker helps researchers to spot scam websites.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01666-3
  6. Biol Open. 2022 Jun 15. pii: bio059428. [Epub ahead of print]11(6):
    The continuing challenge of paper-mills to publishing in the biological sciences.
    Rachel Hackett, Steven Kelly.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.059428
  7. PLoS Med. 2022 Jun 21. 19(6): e1004051
    Facilitating preprint sharing in the health sciences.
    Marcel LaFlamme, Raffaella Bosurgi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004051
  8. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022 Jun;18(6): e1010130
    Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists.
    Carla Bautista, Narjes Alfuraiji, Anna Drangowska-Way, Karishma Gangwani, Alida de Flamingh, Philip E Bourne.
      Communication is a fundamental part of scientific development and methodology. With the advancement of the internet and social networks, communication has become rapid and sometimes overwhelming, especially in science. It is important to provide scientists with useful, effective, and dynamic tools to establish and build a fluid communication framework that allows for scientific advancement. Therefore, in this article, we present advice and recommendations that can help promote and improve science communication while respecting an adequate balance in the degree of commitment toward collaborative work. We have developed 10 rules shown in increasing order of commitment that are grouped into 3 key categories: (1) speak (based on active participation); (2) join (based on joining scientific groups); and (3) assess (based on the analysis and retrospective consideration of the weaknesses and strengths). We include examples and resources that provide actionable strategies for involvement and engagement with science communication, from basic steps to more advanced, introspective, and long-term commitments. Overall, we aim to help spread science from within and encourage and engage scientists to become involved in science communication effectively and dynamically.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010130
  9. Joint Bone Spine. 2022 Jun 15. pii: S1297-319X(22)00086-0. [Epub ahead of print] 105427
    COVID-19 as a source of poor publications.
    Hervé Maisonneuve.
      
    Keywords:  communication; journalology; pandemic; preprints; questionable research practices; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105427
  10. Nat Biomed Eng. 2022 Jun;6(6): 677-678
    How we decline manuscripts.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-022-00908-z
  11. G3 (Bethesda). 2022 Jun 21. pii: jkac141. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing student-led discoveries in genetics.
    Danielle Heller, Viknesh Sivanathan.
      
    Keywords:  SEA-GENES; bacteriophage genetics; course-based research; undergraduate research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkac141
  12. J Optom. 2022 Jul-Sep;15(3):pii: S1888-4296(22)00034-6. [Epub ahead of print]15(3): 189-190
    Peer-reviewed process: is everything valid?
    David P Piñero.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2022.06.001
  13. J Conserv Dent. 2022 Jan-Feb;25(1):25(1): 1-2
    The Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Conundrum.
    Shishir Singh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_173_22
  14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jun 20. pii: S0895-4356(22)00154-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research.
    Dima Itani, Ghena Lababidi, Rola Itani, Tala El Ghoul, Lama Hamade, Ayat R A Hijazi, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A Akl.
       OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals.
    STUDY DESIGN: We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics.
    RESULTS: A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI.
    CONCLUSION: Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; authorship; conflict of interest; funding; peer-reviewed journals; preprint servers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.008
  15. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2022 Jun 14.
    Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study.
    Diego Tosatto, Daniele Bonacina, Alessio Signori, Leonardo Pellicciari, Francesca Cecchi, Cesare Maria Cornaggia, Daniele Piscitelli.
       BACKGROUND: Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
    METHODS: A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed.
    RESULTS: CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01).
    CONCLUSIONS: Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke rehabilitation, our results suggest that health care professionals of all disciplines should avoid clinical decision-making based solely upon abstracts.
    Keywords:  Data accuracy; abstracting and indexing; neurological rehabilitation; randomized controlled trials; spin bias; stroke
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211247
  16. Andes Pediatr. 2022 Apr;pii: S2452-60532022005000404. [Epub ahead of print]93(2): 155-158
    [Why publish Case Reports? Analysis of their contribution to science].
    Luisa Schonhaut B, Italo Costa-Roldan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.32641/andespediatr.v93i2.4226
  17. Mol Oncol. 2022 Jun;16(12): 2297-2299
    Navigating the current landscape of scientific publishing - the Molecular Oncology perspective.
    Kevin M Ryan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.13271
  18. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Jun 22. 15562646221108600
    A Critical Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Ethical Protections in Medical Papers Published in Turkey.
    M Kemal Temel.
      The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines outline the basic principles for ethical conduct and publication of human-subject research, most notably informed consent (IC) and research ethics committee (REC) approval. This retrospective observational study was a first study to investigate the quality of reporting of these protections in a selected sample of medical papers published in Turkey. A total of 573 research articles published in the official journals of six leading Turkish medical schools between January 2018 and December 2020 were searched for information on obtaining (i) REC approval, (ii) written IC from research subjects or their legal guardians/representatives, and (iii) an REC-granted IC waiver when it was found, as stated in the DoH, "impossible or impracticable to obtain consent" from research subjects. Similarly, a total of 166 case reports were searched for a statement about publication-specific IC, as was recommended by COPE. Despite a statistically significant improvement over the years, the overall rates were found to be unsatisfactory. The protections were particularly misused or underused in retrospective research, where the rates of reporting written IC (15.41% vs. 48.61%) and REC approval with date and reference number information (45.38% vs. 61.11%) were significantly lower than in prospective research (p < .05). Both the practices of seeking and granting an IC waiver when no IC was obtained were extremely rare (n = 3). It was also found that the requirement of structured ethical information in research papers was associated with higher levels of ethics compliance, and that medical publishing in Turkey needed specific improvements, including better implementation of the protections already adopted in principle, clearer instructions for authors, more rigorous editorial scrutiny, and greater commitment to rejecting substandard submissions.
    Keywords:  Declaration of Helsinki; ethical protections; human research; informed consent; journals; research ethics; research ethics committees
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221108600
  19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 14. pii: 7273. [Epub ahead of print]19(12):
    Development of a Guideline to Enhance the Reporting of Concept Mapping Research: Study Protocol.
    Sandesh Pantha, Martin Jones, Richard Gray.
      Reporting guidelines are intended to enhance the clarity and transparency of research publications. Concept mapping, a mixed-methods design, has been widely used in health research. Current reporting guidelines for mixed-methods studies are not relevant for concept mapping research. The aim of this study is to develop a reporting guideline for concept mapping research following the EQUATOR network toolkit. Guideline development is in three stages: 1. A systematic review to identify key components of reporting concept mapping research, 2. A concept mapping study involving the key stakeholder groups-researchers, methodologists, peer reviewers, journal editors, statisticians, and people who have participated in concept mapping research-to identify candidate items to include in a reporting guideline, and 3. Development of a draft reporting guideline for concept mapping research. The outcome of the research will be a reporting guideline for concept mapping research.
    Keywords:  concept mapping; methods; protocol; reporting guideline; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127273
  20. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022 Jun 21. 1-7
    How can we get more open access to medical studies? Simple, let's take the green road.
    Giovanni Destro Bisol, Paolo Anagnostou, Marco Capocasa.
      Open Access (OA) to research publications is a fundamental resource for the advancement of scientific research. To facilitate the transition to OA, publishers and institutions have begun negotiating the so-called transformative agreements, contracts combining access to subscription journals with the ability to publish OA. While the debate on transformative agreements is very much alive, little attention is being paid to the "green road", the practice of openly self-archiving manuscripts that have been accepted by journals but not yet typeset. Here we focus on medical literature, showing how the green road could outperform transformative agreements as a means of increasing the full and free availability of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
    Keywords:  Open Access; Open Science; cooperation; medical research; post-prints; public health; transformative agreements
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2022.2092353
  21. Inf Serv Use. 2022 ;42(2): 193-203
    Dr. Lindberg and scholarly publishing.
    Meg Moreland White, Nancy K Roderer, Sheldon Kotzin.
      Donald A.B. Lindberg M.D., Director of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) from August 1984 to March 2015, had a remarkable vision for NLM's scope, goals, and function. This vision resulted in many external partnerships and initiatives with the publishing industry, commercial and non-profit, journal editors, and professional organizations. These partnerships ranged from ongoing collaboration and dialogue, such as the NLM Publisher's Committee and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). to the more practical, such as the creation of HINARI and the Emergency Access Initiative (EAI). Dr. Lindberg fostered partnerships outside the NLM to expand the use and reach of Library resources, including MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov to support innovations in the processes that build them, and to improve the quality of biomedical journals. Dr. Lindberg also encouraged the use of technology to enhance medical information and supported the early development of fully interactive publications. Attitudes that contained a measure of skepticism and distrust faded as collaborators came to have a better understanding of both NLM and their partners. This chapter discusses these relationships and accomplishments that NLM achieved working with publishers and other creators and disseminators of medical information under Dr. Lindberg's leadership.
    Keywords:  ClinicalTrials.gov; Donald A.B. Lindberg M.D.; MEDLINE; U.S. National Library of Medicine; publishing; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-220151
  22. Am J Public Health. 2022 Jul;112(7): 951
    Scientific Publishing and the Tobacco Industry.
    Alfredo Morabia.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306916
  23. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2021 Oct-Dec;19(4):19(4): 409-410
    Do we need a scientific journal?
    Francisco Cortes Fernandes.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.47626/1679-4435-2021-194
  24. Ulster Med J. 2022 May;91(2): 67-78
    The Role of Visual Abstracts in the Dissemination of Medical Research.
    Beverley C Millar, Michelle Lim.
      Medical research within the UK has continued to grow, most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic over the last two years, which highlights the importance of disseminating relevant research findings. For all researchers involved in clinical trials and scientific research, the end goal of success is not completed following the publication of the research findings, but ultimately true impact and significance is achieved when such research has a role in developing clinical practice. Each year between 2.5 - 3 million scientific papers are published and the number continues to rise, therefore it is becoming increasingly difficult to ensure that published research has such a targeted impact as it must first get noticed. Increasing time commitments result in difficulties for clinicians keeping up-to-date with the current literature and in order to address this, journals and researchers have developed approaches to share peer-reviewed research with the wider research community in an effective and efficient manner. One such approach has been the introduction of the visual abstract which comprises of an infographic style format, coupled with a shortened, limited word summary of the research abstract detailing the key question, methodology, findings and take home message of the research study. The visual abstract has characteristics which enable it to be shared on social media platforms and in turn increase the interest and impact within the research community. Visual abstracts are being increasingly introduced within medical journals and organisations to help disseminate valuable research findings. This review focuses on visual abstracts, what they are, their history, structure and role within research dissemination and medical education.
    Keywords:  dissemination; medical education; science communication; social media; visual abstract
  25. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2022 Jun 15. pii: S1939-8654(22)00267-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Writing your first paper Part 2: Submission, review, and post-publication.
    Andrew Murphy, Amanda Bolderston.
      The submission, revision and post-publication process is an often-underappreciated aspect of the manuscript writing journey. It can be quite challenging to navigate journal submission systems, understand the complexities of responding to reviewer feedback, and figuring out how to promote your work post-publication. Part one of this series discussed how to begin your research and write up the results for submission [1]. This second part highlights the rewards and challenges involved in the publication of your work.
    Keywords:  Introductory Journal Article; continuing medical education; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2022.05.004
  26. J Bioeth Inq. 2022 Jun 22.
    Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      This paper explores that the topic of ethics dumping (ED), its causes and potential remedies. In ED, the weaknesses or gaps in ethics policies and systems of lower income countries are intentionally exploited for intellectual or financial gains through research and publishing by higher income countries with a more stringent or complex ethical infrastructure in which such research and publishing practices would not be permitted. Several examples are provided. Possible ED needs to be evaluated before research takes place, and detected prior to publication as an academic paper, because it might lead to a collaborative effort between a wealthier country with restrictive ethical policies and a less wealthy country with more permissive policies. Consequently, if that collaboration ultimately results in an academic paper, there are ethical ramifications of ED to scholarly communication. Institutional review board approval is central to avoid ED-based collaborations. Blind trust and goodwill alone cannot eliminate the exploitation of indigenous or "vulnerable" populations' intellect and resources. Combining community-based participatory research using clear codes of research conduct and a simple but robust verification system in academic publishing may reduce the risks of ED-based research from being published.
    Keywords:  Bioethics; Codes of conduct; Collaboration; Colonial science; Community-based participatory research; Equality and equity; Globalized research; Helicopter research; Ill gains; Morality; Neocolonial science; Policy; Predatory publishing; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10191-x
  27. Dement Neuropsychol. 2022 Apr-Jun;16(2):16(2): 129-134
    Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing.
    Sergio Della-Sala.
      Science and science reporting are under threat. Knowingly or not, researchers and clinicians are part of this debacle. This is not due so much to the notorious replication crisis, as to our acceptance of lowering common morality for personal gains, including the widespread, deprecable phenomenon of predatory publishing. Rather than fiercefully countering this loathsome practice, academics are accepting, often supporting a masquerade solution: paying several thousand dollars to publish for all their own papers. This new policy will create a disparity across richer and poorer disciplines; will result in concentrating even more in the hands of large, rich, Western institutions, also penalising younger researchers; will kill observational studies and exploratory research; and will make disseminating science depending more on finances than on quality. This article calls for the full awareness of the academic community on the risks of the current situation in scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  Integrity; Open Access Publishing; Plan-S; Predatory Publishers; Scientific Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2022-V001
  28. Immunology. 2022 Jul;166(3): 267
    Editorial: Streamlining the process of submissions to Immunology.
    Greg M Delgoffe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.13521
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.