bims-skolko 2022-08-07 papers

Issue of 2022‒08‒07
ten papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2022 Jul 29. pii: S2173-5077(22)00268-X. [Epub ahead of print]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2021.11.023

R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Jul;9(7): 220142

Discrepancy review: a feasibility study of a novel peer review intervention to reduce undisclosed discrepancies between registrations and publications.

TARG Meta-Research Group and Collaborators

Undisclosed discrepancies often exist between study registrations and their associated publications. Discrepancies can increase risk of bias, and when undisclosed, they disguise this increased risk of bias from readers. To remedy this issue, we developed an intervention called discrepancy review. We provided journals with peer reviewers specifically assigned to check for undisclosed discrepancies between registrations and manuscripts submitted to journals. We performed discrepancy review on 18 manuscripts submitted to Nicotine and Tobacco Research and three manuscripts submitted to the European Journal of Personality. We iteratively refined the discrepancy review process based on feedback from discrepancy reviewers, editors and authors. Authors addressed the majority of discrepancy reviewer comments, and there was no opposition to running a trial from authors, editors or discrepancy reviewers. Outcome measures for a trial of discrepancy review could include the presence of primary or secondary outcome discrepancies, whether publications that are not the primary report from a clinical trial registration are clearly described as such, whether registrations are permanent, and an overarching subjective assessment of the impact of discrepancies in published articles. We found that discrepancy review could feasibly be introduced as a regular practice at some journals interested in this process. A full trial of discrepancy review would be needed to evaluate its impact on reducing undisclosed discrepancies.

Keywords: meta-research; outcome switching; peer review; pre-registration; selective reporting; trial registration

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220142

Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2022 Jul 29. pii: S2173-5077(22)00266-6. [Epub ahead of print]

Peer review: Is it important?

Eduardo M Targarona Soler.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2021.11.022

Arch Plast Surg. 2022 Jul;49(4): 538-542

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon.

Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen.

Performing the first peer review of a plastic surgical research article can be an overwhelming task. However, it is an essential scholarly skill and peer review is used in a multitude of settings: evaluation of journal articles, conference abstracts, and research proposals. Furthermore, peer reviewing provides more than just the opportunity to read and help improve other's work: peer reviewing can improve your own scientific writing. A structured approach is possible and recommended. In these ten tips, we provide guidance on how to successfully conduct the first peer reviews. The ten tips on peer reviewing concern: 1) Appropriateness: are you qualified and prepared to perform the peer review? 2) Familiarization with the journal and its reviewing guidelines; 3) Gathering first impressions of the paper followed by specific tips for reviewing; 4) the abstract and introduction; 5) Materials, methods, and results (including statistical considerations); and 6) discussion, conclusion, and references. Tip 7 concerns writing and structuring the review; Tips 7 and 8 describe how to provide constructive criticism and understanding the limits of your expertise. Finally, Tip 10 details why-and how-you become a peer reviewer. Peer review can be done by any plastic surgeon, not just those interested in an academic career. These ten tips provide useful insights for both the aspiring and the experienced peer reviewer. In conclusion, a systematic approach to peer reviewing is possible and recommended, and can help you getting started to provide quality peer reviews that contribute to moving the field of plastic surgery forward.

Keywords: continuing medical education; peer review; plastic surgery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1744413

Nature. 2022 08;608(7921): 9

Retractions are increasing, but not enough.

Ivan Oransky.

Keywords: Ethics; Journalism; Publishing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02071-6

J Clin Invest. 2022 Aug 01. pii: e162884. [Epub ahead of print]132(15):

Data we can trust.

Sarah Jackson, Corinne L Williams, Kathleen L Collins, Elizabeth M McNally.

"On behalf of all authors of the submission, I warrant that the work is original and scientifically accurate ..." If you've submitted a manuscript to the Journal of Clinical Investigation or JCI Insight, this phrase should sound familiar. This statement is the very first thing that we ask authors to verify for every new submission. While this may seem like a simple formality or just another screen to click through, certifying the accuracy of information presented to the journal is essential to the publishing process and scientific integrity. Data accuracy forms the foundation of the scientific enterprise, and without it, the enterprise risks crumbling.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI162884

Med J Aust. 2022 Aug 01. 217(3): 138-139

Striving for gender equity at the Medical Journal of Australia.

Alisha Dorrigan, Elizabeth Zuccala, Nicholas J Talley.

Keywords: Gender identity; Publishing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51642

Health Info Libr J. 2022 Aug 03.

Wanted! Health information students & early career health information workers new to writing for publication.

Frances Johnson.

Invitation to health information students and early career health information workers new to writing for publication to share evaluations of existing services or investigations into service improvement.

Keywords: dissemination; dissertations; evaluation; information services; research and development

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12455