bims-skolko 2022-09-04 papers

Issue of 2022–09–04
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Heliyon. 2022 Aug;8(8): e10241

The very first sentence in research article introductions: A rhetoric comparative approach.

The current study explores the rhetoric and stylistic properties of the very first sentence that scholars generate in their research article introductions. The study draws upon a corpus of 502 sentences written in the fields of linguistics and translation, half of which are collected from national low-impact journals affiliated with Gulf universities in the Middle East while the other half are elicited from international high-impact journals. The study shows that half of the authors in high-impact journals as opposed to a quarter of the authors in low-impact journals provide citations to their very first sentence. These preferences are accounted for by the distinction drawn by Swales (1990) between centrality claims and topic generalizations under Move 1. Contra the predictions made by Create A Research Space Model proposed by Swales (1990, 2004), the results show that the authors of high-impact journals are more liberal in starting their introduction with a sentence of Move 2 or 3 type. In contrast, the authors of low-impact journals prefer to begin with a sentence of Move 1 type that is shorter in word count, more metaphorical, less academic as well as full of typos and grammatical errors.

Keywords: Academic writing; Arabic; Contrastive rhetoric; Cross-cultural communication; English

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10241

Science. 2022 Sep 02. 377(6610): 1026-1027

U.S. to require free access to papers on all research it funds.

Jeffrey Brainard, Jocelyn Kaiser.

The plan, to start at the end of 2025, is a blow to journal paywalls, but its impact on publishing is unclear.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade6577

R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Aug;9(8): 220139

Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: a cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice.

Tom E Hardwicke, Robert T Thibault, Jessica E Kosie, Loukia Tzavella, Theiss Bendixen, Sarah A Handcock, Vivian E Köneke, John P A Ioannidis.

Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique). We assessed policies (Study One) and practice (Study Two) related to post-publication critique at 15 top-ranked journals in each of 22 scientific disciplines (N = 330 journals). Two-hundred and seven (63%) journals accepted post-publication critique and often imposed limits on length (median 1000, interquartile range (IQR) 500-1200 words) and time-to-submit (median 12, IQR 4-26 weeks). The most restrictive limits were 175 words and two weeks; some policies imposed no limits. Of 2066 randomly sampled research articles published in 2018 by journals accepting post-publication critique, 39 (1.9%, 95% confidence interval [1.4, 2.6]) were linked to at least one post-publication critique (there were 58 post-publication critiques in total). Of the 58 post-publication critiques, 44 received an author reply, of which 41 asserted that original conclusions were unchanged. Clinical Medicine had the most active culture of post-publication critique: all journals accepted post-publication critique and published the most post-publication critique overall, but also imposed the strictest limits on length (median 400, IQR 400-550 words) and time-to-submit (median 4, IQR 4-6 weeks). Our findings suggest that top-ranked academic journals often pose serious barriers to the cultivation, documentation and dissemination of post-publication critique.

Keywords: journal policy; letter to the editor; meta-research; peer review; post-publication critique; scientific criticism

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220139

Med Educ. 2022 Aug 28.

'For the most part it works': Exploring how authors navigate peer review feedback.

Christopher Watling, Jennifer Shaw, Emily Field, Shiphra Ginsburg.

BACKGROUND: Peer review aims to provide meaningful feedback to research authors so that they may improve their work, and yet it constitutes a particularly challenging context for the exchange of feedback. We explore how research authors navigate the process of interpreting and responding to peer review feedback, in order to elaborate how feedback functions when some of the conditions thought to be necessary for it to be effective are not met.
METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 17 recently-published health professions education researchers about their experiences with the peer review process. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative. We used constant comparison to identify themes and to develop a conceptual model of how feedback functions in this setting.
RESULTS: While participants expressed faith in peer review, they acknowledged that the process was emotionally trying, and raised concerns about its consistency and credibility. These potential threats were mitigated by factors including time, team support, experience, and the exercise of autonomy. Additionally, the perceived engagement of reviewers and the cultural norms and expectations surrounding the process strengthened authors' willingness and capacity to respond productively. Our analysis suggests a model of feedback within which its perceived usefulness turns on the balance of threats and countermeasures.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Feedback is a balancing act. Although threats to the productive uptake of peer review feedback abound, these threats may be neutralized by a range of countermeasures. Among these, opportunities for autonomy and cultural normalization of both the professional responsibility to engage with feedback and the challenge of doing so may be especially influential and may have implications beyond the peer review setting.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14932

Indian J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul-Sep;VII(3):VII(3): 202-204

Gift authorship: Two more contexts.

T R Dilip.

The emergence of multi-centric studies and collaborative research between institutions within and outside the country, and of research led by authors who are from the same family, has led to notable changes in the production of public health research evidence from India. There is a potential risk of research publications overlooking the well known ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) criteria for authorship, with the provision of gift authorship to researchers who can facilitate faster access to Indian data for such collaborative research. The paper calls for action to reduce the practice of gift authorship in these research settings.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2022.053

Indian J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul-Sep;VII(3):VII(3): 179-183

Authorship controversies in academic publication: implications for science and the research environment.

Trudo Lemmens, Sandhya Srinivasan.

The inspiration for this theme issue came from one of the biggest challenges that the journal has faced since its inception.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2022.051

PeerJ. 2022 ;10 e13933

A survey of researchers' code sharing and code reuse practices, and assessment of interactive notebook prototypes.

Lauren Cadwallader, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz.

This research aimed to understand the needs and habits of researchers in relation to code sharing and reuse; gather feedback on prototype code notebooks created by NeuroLibre; and help determine strategies that publishers could use to increase code sharing. We surveyed 188 researchers in computational biology. Respondents were asked about how often and why they look at code, which methods of accessing code they find useful and why, what aspects of code sharing are important to them, and how satisfied they are with their ability to complete these tasks. Respondents were asked to look at a prototype code notebook and give feedback on its features. Respondents were also asked how much time they spent preparing code and if they would be willing to increase this to use a code sharing tool, such as a notebook. As a reader of research articles the most common reason (70%) for looking at code was to gain a better understanding of the article. The most commonly encountered method for code sharing-linking articles to a code repository-was also the most useful method of accessing code from the reader's perspective. As authors, the respondents were largely satisfied with their ability to carry out tasks related to code sharing. The most important of these tasks were ensuring that the code was running in the correct environment, and sharing code with good documentation. The average researcher, according to our results, is unwilling to incur additional costs (in time, effort or expenditure) that are currently needed to use code sharing tools alongside a publication. We infer this means we need different models for funding and producing interactive or executable research outputs if they are to reach a large number of researchers. For the purpose of increasing the amount of code shared by authors, PLOS Computational Biology is, as a result, focusing on policy rather than tools.

Keywords: Open science; Publishing practices; Research code dissemination; Research code reuse; Research code sharing; Survey results

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13933

Nature. 2022 09;609(7925): 208-209

Poor English skills? New AIs help researchers to write better.

Alla Katsnelson.

Keywords: Authorship; Publishing; Software

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02767-9

Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022 08 31. 8465371221120594

Writing a Successful Systematic Review Manuscript for a Radiology Journal.

Mostafa Alabousi, Philippe Soyer, Michael N Patlas.

Keywords: Diagnostic Accuracy; Epidemiology; Meta-analysis; Systematic Review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371221120594

Ann Intern Med. 2022 Aug 30.

Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update.

Lisa M DeTora, Dikran Toroser, Angela Sykes, Christine Vanderlinden, Fiona J Plunkett, Trevor Lane, Eline Hanekamp, Laura Dormer, Faith DiBiasi, Dan Bridges, Lise Baltzer, Leslie Citrome.

These updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines include recommendations for publishing company-sponsored biomedical research. The GPP guidelines apply to peer-reviewed or peer-oriented biomedical publications, such as manuscripts, meeting presentations, posters, and abstracts, as well as enhanced content, such as plain-language summaries. The current GPP guidelines incorporate guidance on ethics and transparency as well as the planning, development, review, and approval of biomedical publications and policies and procedures that describe these practices. Supplemental materials lay out processes for steering committees, publication plans, publication working groups, determining authorship, and documentation. Information about new topics, such as alliances and working with patients, has been included where appropriate within these supplemental materials. Incorporating the principles and best practices presented in these GPP guidelines will result in increased transparency and a firm ethical footing. This guidance is also intended to enable the compliant incorporation of new and emerging publication tools for the ethical publication of company-sponsored research.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-1460

J Med Internet Res. 2022 Aug 31. 24(8): e37594

Publishing Identifiable Patient Photographs in Scientific Journals: Scoping Review of Policies and Practices.

Marija Roguljić, Dina Šimunović, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Marin Viđak, Ana Utrobičić, Matko Marušić, Ana Marušić.

BACKGROUND: Publishing identifiable patient data in scientific journals may jeopardize patient privacy and confidentiality if best ethical practices are not followed. Current journal practices show considerable diversity in the publication of identifiable patient photographs, and different stakeholders may have different opinions of and practices in publishing patient photographs.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify existing evidence and map knowledge gaps in medical research on the policies and practices of publishing identifiable photographs in scientific articles.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL with Full Text, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus. The Open Science Framework, PROSPERO, BASE, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Campbell Collaboration Library, and Science.gov were also searched.
RESULTS: After screening the initial 15,949 titles and abstracts, 98 (0.61%) publications were assessed for eligibility at the full-text level, and 30 (0.19%) publications were included in this review. The studies were published between 1994 and 2020; most had a cross-sectional design and were published in journals covering different medical disciplines. We identified 3 main topics. The first included ethical aspects of the use of facial photographs in publications. In different clinical settings, the consent process was not conducted properly, and health professionals did not recognize the importance of obtaining written patient consent for taking and using patient medical photographs. They often considered verbal consent sufficient or even used the photographs without consent. The second topic included studies that investigated the practices and use of medical photography in publishing. Both patients and doctors asked for confidential storage and maintenance of medical photographs. Patients preferred to be photographed by their physicians using an institutional camera and preferred nonidentifiable medical photographs not only for publication but also in general. Conventional methods of deidentification of facial photographs concealing the eye area were recognized as unsuccessful in protecting patient privacy. The third topic emerged from studies investigating medical photography in journal articles. These studies showed great diversity in publishing practices regarding consent for publication of medical photographs. Journal policies regarding the consent process and consent forms were insufficient, and existing ethical professional guidelines were not fully implemented in actual practices. Patients' photographs from open-access medical journals were found on public web-based platforms.
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review showed a diversity of practices in publishing identifiable patient photographs and an unsatisfactory level of knowledge of this issue among different stakeholders despite existing standards. Emerging issues include the availability of patients' photographs from open-access journals or preprints in the digital environment. There is a need to improve standards and processes to obtain proper consent to fully protect the privacy of patients in published articles.

Keywords: confidentiality; data protection; ethical publishing; identifiable patient photographs; informed consent; medical photography; mobile phone; open access; patient privacy; scientific journals; scoping review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/37594

Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2022 Aug;6(6): e12791

Impact factor to discovery: The future of thrombosis and hemostasis research.

Mary Cushman.

Keywords: COVID‐19; hemostasis; impact factor; journal citation indicator; thrombosis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12791