bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–10–23
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Peer review without gatekeeping.
  2. The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices: Five years later.
  3. Factors relating to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada: a qualitative interview study.
  4. Publication audit & ever increasing problems faced by editors of Biomedical Journals.
  5. Academic publishing and predatory journals - a tension between dissemination of scientific knowledge and the academic performance pressure.
  6. Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System.
  7. COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields.
  8. The challenge of open access incentives.
  9. Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study.
  10. Dozens of papers co-authored by Nobel laureate raise concerns.
  11. Preserving credibility of open access journals.
  12. Current Research in Neurobiology, an experimental platform for innovation.
  13. Context Analysis of Continued Citation of Retracted Manuscripts Published in Anesthesiology Journals.
  14. Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students' bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references.
  15. Don't let Yoda or Bill and Ted write your papers: instead, here's some tips from some editors on getting your paper published.
  16. The good in social media.
  17. Transparent peer review for all.
  18. Peer Reviewing Papers for a Nursing Journal.
  19. Opening up Peer Review.
  20. Peer Review: Privilege and Duty.
  21. Flight reviews and manuscript reviews: editorial.
  22. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at HSS Journal.
  23. Editorial: Case-reports, a compendium of useful ideas for our daily activity.
  24. Why does Applied Optics publish feature and institutional issues?: editorial.
  25. 70 years of the journal.
  26. Undergraduate research-why start so early?: editorial.
  27. Antiviral Research: At age 41, a transition.
  28. Reviewing is fun. The Reviewer of the Year Award of the Brain and Spine Journal.
  1. Elife. 2022 Oct 20. pii: e83889. [Epub ahead of print]11
    Peer review without gatekeeping.
    Michael B Eisen, Anna Akhmanova, Timothy E Behrens, Jörn Diedrichsen, Diane M Harper, Mihaela D Iordanova, Detlef Weigel, Mone Zaidi.
      eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; research assessment; research communication; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83889
  2. Behav Res Methods. 2022 Oct 17.
    The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices: Five years later.
    David Giofrè, Ingrid Boedker, Geoff Cumming, Carlotta Rivella, Patrizio Tressoldi.
      Changes in statistical practices and reporting have been documented by Giofrè et al. PLOS ONE 12(4), e0175583 (2017), who investigated ten statistical and open practices in two high-ranking journals (Psychological Science [PS] and Journal of Experimental Psychology-General [JEPG]): null hypothesis significance testing; confidence or credible intervals; meta-analysis of the results of multiple experiments; confidence interval interpretation; effect size interpretation; sample size determination; data exclusion; data availability; materials availability; and preregistered design and analysis plan. The investigation was based on an analysis of all papers published in these journals between 2013 and 2015. The aim of the present study was to follow up changes in both PS and JEPG in subsequent years, from 2016 to 2020, adding code availability as a further open practice. We found improvement in most practices, with some exceptions (i.e., confidence interval interpretation and meta-analysis). Despite these positive changes, our results indicate a need for further improvements in statistical practices and adoption of open practices.
    Keywords:  Author submission guidelines; Open science practices; Statistical practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01993-3
  3. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Oct 21.
    Factors relating to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada: a qualitative interview study.
    Richard L Morrow, Barbara Mintzes, Garry Gray, Michael R Law, Scott Garrison, Colin R Dormuth.
       AIM: To understand factors contributing to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada.
    METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted between March 2019 and April 2021 with 34 participants from the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members, and 10 clinical trial participants. We conducted a thematic analysis involving coding of interview transcripts and memo-writing to identify key themes.
    RESULTS: Several factors contribute to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trial research. A core theme was that reporting practices are shaped by incentives within the research system which favour publication of positive over negative trials. Investigators are discouraged from reporting by experiences or perceptions of difficulty in publishing negative findings but rewarded for publishing positive findings in various ways. Trial investigators more strongly associated positive clinical trials than negative trials with opportunities for industry and nonindustry funding and with academic promotion, bonuses, and recognition. Research institutions and ethics boards tended to lack well-resourced, proactive policies and practices to ensure trial findings are reported in registries or journals.
    CONCLUSION: Clinical trial reporting practices in Canada are shaped by incentives favouring reporting of positive over negative trials, such as funding opportunities and academic promotion, bonuses, and recognition. Research institutions could help change incentives by adopting performance metrics that emphasize full reporting of results in journals or registries.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15574
  4. Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Sep-Oct;38(7):38(7): 2043-2048
    Publication audit & ever increasing problems faced by editors of Biomedical Journals.
    Shaukat Ali Jawaid.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.7.6920
  5. Injury. 2022 Nov;pii: S0020-1383(22)00762-8. [Epub ahead of print]53(11): 3567-3568
    Academic publishing and predatory journals - a tension between dissemination of scientific knowledge and the academic performance pressure.
    Markus Rupp, Nike Walter, Peter V Giannoudis, Volker Alt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.10.002
  6. Med Educ Online. 2022 Dec;27(1): 2139169
    Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System.
    Halah Ibrahim, Shahad Abasaeed Elhag, Salma M Elnour, Sawsan Abdel-Razig, Thana Harhara, Satish Chandrasekhar Nair.
       INTRODUCTION: Learning research methodology is increasingly becoming an essential part of graduate medical education worldwide, with many regulatory and accreditation bodies requiring residents to participate in scholarship. Research methodology workshops have become a standard part of medical curricula; however, there is limited data on how much training on journal selection and the publication process trainees receive. The alarming growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for researchers, especially trainees and early career physicians, to distinguish these publications from reputable journals. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge of reputable and predatory publishing practices amongst medical trainees in an international medical education setting in the United Arab Emirates.
    METHODS: A survey on credible journal practices based on the 'Think. Check. Submit' initiative was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies.
    RESULTS: Over half of the 160 respondents reported receiving prior research methodology training and 42.5% had at least one publication. The majority of the trainees selected impact factor and the quality of the peer-review process as characteristics of reputable journals. Ambiguous editorial board and rapid publication process were recognized as characteristics of predatory journals by >65% of trainees, however, 95% of all trainees were unaware of Beall's list or other resources to help select a journal for publication. 15.2% of trainees who received unsolicited emails from publishers submitted their manuscripts to the unfamiliar journals, citing peer recommendation and pressure to publish from their training programs as reasons.
    CONCLUSION: Trainees in the United Arab Emirates were mostly unaware of reputable publication practices and are vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. Policy and educational reform are necessary to maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; medical education; predatory publishing; research methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2139169
  7. Scientometrics. 2022 Oct 10. 1-18
    COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields.
    Gabriela F Nane, Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, François van Schalkwyk, Daniel Torres-Salinas.
      We model the growth of scientific literature related to COVID-19 and forecast the expected growth from 1 June 2021. Considering the significant scientific and financial efforts made by the research community to find solutions to end the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented volume of scientific outputs is being produced. This questions the capacity of scientists, politicians and citizens to maintain infrastructure, digest content and take scientifically informed decisions. A crucial aspect is to make predictions to prepare for such a large corpus of scientific literature. Here we base our predictions on the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and exponential smoothing models using the Dimensions database. This source has the particularity of including in the metadata information on the date in which papers were indexed. We present global predictions, plus predictions in three specific settings: by type of access (Open Access), by domain-specific repository (SSRN and MedRxiv) and by several research fields. We conclude by discussing our findings.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Dimensions; Growth of science; Open access; Scientific publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x
  8. Science. 2022 Oct 21. 378(6617): 256
    The challenge of open access incentives.
    Manuel Lerdau.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7288
  9. Braz J Phys Ther. 2022 Oct 14. pii: S1413-3555(22)00058-2. [Epub ahead of print]26(5): 100450
    Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study.
    Tiziano Innocenti, Daniel Feller, Silvia Giagio, Stefano Salvioli, Silvia Minnucci, Fabrizio Brindisino, Carola Cosentino, Leonardo Piano, Alessandro Chiarotto, Raymond Ostelo.
       BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB).
    OBJECTIVES: Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics.
    METHODS: A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration).
    RESULTS: The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found.
    CONCLUSION: Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.
    Keywords:  Meta-research; Randomised controlled trial; Rehabilitation; Reporting guidelines; Research quality; Risk of bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100450
  10. Nature. 2022 Oct 21.
    Dozens of papers co-authored by Nobel laureate raise concerns.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03032-9
  11. Science. 2022 Oct 21. 378(6617): 257
    Preserving credibility of open access journals.
    Baichang Zhong, Xiaofan Liu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade8966
  12. Curr Res Neurobiol. 2021 ;2 100005
    Current Research in Neurobiology, an experimental platform for innovation.
    Christopher I Petkov, Abhishek Banerjee, Yogita Chudasama, Kerry Walker, Xiaoqin Wang, Anna S Mitchell.
      Welcome to Current Research in Neurobiology (CRNEUR), the gold open access, sibling journal to Current Opinion in Neurobiology, a journal for timely original research in neuroscience. At its very core, CRNEUR is a journal for creativity and innovation in science and publishing. As a journal, we ambitiously aim for CRNEUR to be a vehicle for what many of us envisioned an academic journal could be. Empowered by our commitment to fairness and transparency-to hold ourselves and others to a higher standard-here we describe our ambitions for innovation going forward. We need your help in this process and welcome your views via this survey (https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/5LHWTML) and on social media (to start or join a discussion please use the hashtag #CRNEUR).
    Keywords:  Discovery; Diversity; Equality; Experimentation; Inclusion; Innovation; Publishing; Research culture; Scientific advance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crneur.2021.100005
  13. Anesth Analg. 2022 Nov 01. 135(5): 1011-1020
    Context Analysis of Continued Citation of Retracted Manuscripts Published in Anesthesiology Journals.
    Peter E Frasco, Bradford B Smith, Andrew W Murray, Narjeet Khurmi, Jeff T Mueller, Karl A Poterack.
      The continued citation of retracted publications from the medical literature is a well-known and persistent problem. We describe the contexts of ongoing citations to manuscripts that have been retracted from a selection of anesthesiology journals. We also examine how bibliographic databases and publisher websites document the retracted status of these manuscripts. The authors performed an analysis of retracted publications from anesthesiology journals using the Retraction Watch database. We then examined how the retraction information was displayed on bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites. The primary outcome was the context of continued citation after retraction of flawed publications within the specialty of anesthesiology. Secondary outcomes included comparison of the documentation, bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites used in identifying the retracted status of these publications and provision of access to the respective retraction notices. A total of 245 original publications were retracted over a 28-year period from 9 anesthesiology journals. PubMed, compared to the other databases and search engines, was the most consistent (98.8%) in documenting the retracted status of the publications examined, as well as providing a direct link to the retraction notice. From the 211 publications retracted before January 2020, there were 1307 postretraction citations accessed from Scopus. The median number of postretraction citations was 3.5 (range, 0-88, with at least 1 citation in 164 publications) in Scopus. Of the postretraction citations, 80% affirmed the validity of the retracted publications, while only 5.2% of citations acknowledged the retraction or misconduct. In 10.2% of the citations from original research studies, retracted manuscripts appeared to influence the decision to pursue or the methods used in subsequent original research studies. The frequency of citation of the 15 most cited retracted publications declined in a similar pattern during the 10 years after retraction. Citation of manuscripts retracted from anesthesiology journals remains a common occurrence. Technological innovations and application of standards for handling retracted publications, as suggested by coalitions of researchers across the spectrum of scientific investigation, may serve to reduce the persistence of this error.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006195
  14. Scientometrics. 2022 Oct 10. 1-28
    Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students' bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references.
    Evelyn Eika, Frode Eika Sandnes.
      Research is becoming increasingly accessible to the public via open access publications, researchers' social media postings, outreach activities, and popular disseminations. A healthy research discourse is typified by debates, disagreements, and diverging views. Consequently, readers may rely on the information available, such as publication reference attributes and bibliometric markers, to resolve conflicts. Yet, critical voices have warned about the uncritical and one-sided use of such information to assess research. In this study we wanted to get insight into how individuals without research training place trust in research based on clues present in publication references. A questionnaire was designed to probe respondents' perceptions of six publication attributes. A total of 148 students responded to the questionnaire of which 118 were undergraduate students (with limited experience and knowledge of research) and 27 were graduate students (with some knowledge and experience of research). The results showed that the respondents were mostly influenced by the number of citations and the recency of publication, while author names, publication type, and publication origin were less influential. There were few differences between undergraduate and graduate students, with the exception that undergraduate students more strongly favoured publications with multiple authors over publications with single authors. We discuss possible implications for teachers that incorporate research articles in their curriculum.
    Keywords:  Citations; Credibility; Post truths; Publication; References; Trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04521-4
  15. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2022 Oct 17.
    Don't let Yoda or Bill and Ted write your papers: instead, here's some tips from some editors on getting your paper published.
    Jamie Trapp, Martin Caon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-022-01176-6
  16. BJUI Compass. 2022 Nov;3(6): 403-404
    The good in social media.
      
    Keywords:  open access publishing; social media; sound science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.194
  17. Nat Commun. 2022 Oct 19. 13(1): 6173
    Transparent peer review for all.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33056-8
  18. Am J Nurs. 2022 Nov 01. 122(11): 52-56
    Peer Reviewing Papers for a Nursing Journal.
    Charon A Pierson.
       ABSTRACT: Editors rely on peer reviewers' comments and insight as they make decisions about submitted manuscripts. This article describes what reviewers need to consider when accepting a peer review assignment and the essential elements they should include in their peer review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000897136.56646.ba
  19. Genetics. 2020 Nov 01. 216(3): 619-620
    Opening up Peer Review.
    Tracey A DePellegrin, Mark Johnston.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.120.303730
  20. Urogynecology (Hagerstown). 2022 Oct 01. 28(10): 625-626
    Peer Review: Privilege and Duty.
    Megan O Schimpf.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001235
  21. Appl Opt. 2022 Aug 01. 61(22): ED4
    Flight reviews and manuscript reviews: editorial.
    Gisele Bennett.
      Editor-in-Chief Gisele Bennett discusses the benefits of manuscript reviews.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.471361
  22. HSS J. 2022 Nov;18(4): 459-461
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at HSS Journal.
    Lauren A Barber, Joy Jacobson, Charles N Cornell.
      
    Keywords:  bias; disparities; diversity; equity; health equity; inclusion; journal publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316221118564
  23. Front Surg. 2022 ;9 1026401
    Editorial: Case-reports, a compendium of useful ideas for our daily activity.
    Nuria Maria Novoa.
      
    Keywords:  case-report; clinical cases; medical literature; peer-review activity; scientific communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1026401
  24. Appl Opt. 2022 Jun 10. 61(17): ED2
    Why does Applied Optics publish feature and institutional issues?: editorial.
    Gisele Bennett.
      Editor-in-Chief Gisele Bennett discusses the intent and motivations for organizing feature issues and institutional issues.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.465333
  25. Occup Med (Lond). 2022 Oct 18. 72(7): 434-435
    70 years of the journal.
    Paul J Nicholson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab088
  26. Appl Opt. 2022 Jul 01. 61(19): ED3
    Undergraduate research-why start so early?: editorial.
    Gisele Bennett.
      Editor-in-Chief Gisele Bennett highlights the importance of early exposure to research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.465334
  27. Antiviral Res. 2022 Oct 14. pii: S0166-3542(22)00216-9. [Epub ahead of print] 105447
    Antiviral Research: At age 41, a transition.
    Mike Bray.
      This article marks the transition from Mike Bray to Subhash Vasudevan as editor-in-chief of Antiviral Research, in the journal's 41st year of publication. It reviews AVR's experience since 2011, when the founder and first editor-in-chief, Erik De Clercq, wrote a paper describing the journal's first 30 years. Since that time, the editorial team has doubled in size, with editors now located in 8 countries; half are women. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of published papers, covering research on antiviral drugs, vaccines and pathogenesis for a wide range of endemic and epidemic viral diseases of humans and livestock animals, and there has been a significant rise in the journal's impact factor. AVR's experience during the COVID-19 pandemic is also briefly summarized.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2022.105447
  28. Brain Spine. 2022 ;2 100931
    Reviewing is fun. The Reviewer of the Year Award of the Brain and Spine Journal.
    Frank Kandziora, Wilco Peul.
      In an attempt to establish a quality control mechanism for reviews in the Brain and Spine journal the "Reviewer of the Year Award" was created. The goal of this award is to evaluate the reviews, to motivate the reviewers and finally to improve the quality of the reviews over time.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100931
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.