bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–12–04
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science.
  2. Pandemic and infodemic: the role of academic journals and preprints.
  3. Publication ethics during the Covid times: Reflections on research integrity, authorship, peer review and editorial policies.
  4. Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review.
  5. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study.
  6. The Great Inflation: How COVID-19 affected the Journal Impact Factor of high impact medical journals.
  7. Mitigating potential bias in peer review at IFAR.
  8. What More Can We Do in Peer Review to Achieve Equity in Scientific Publication?
  9. Regression towards the mean-a plea for civility in peer review.
  10. [Predatory journals in otorhinolaryngology].
  11. Critical Care Nurse Needs You! Behind the Scenes of Peer Review.
  12. Lessons learnt from the International Peer Review Week 2022 with the theme - "Research Integrity: Creating and supporting trust in research".
  13. Preprints in CSP.
  14. Publish, flourish or perish: The ups and downs of journal publication.
  15. The postgraduate literature review: Turning your chapter into a scholarly publication.
  16. Ensuring image integrity in the digital age.
  17. Impact Factor Jumps After the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study in Rheumatology Journals.
  18. How to produce a rapid systematic review - a review article.
  19. Editorial - Community Dental Health opens its archive of papers to all.
  20. Position statement from the Editors of Anaesthesia on equity, diversity and inclusion.
  21. Scientific authorship in neurosurgery.
  22. [The German Society for Neurology and its journals : Or: back to the future-Der Nervenarzt has survived!]
  1. Nature. 2022 Dec 02.
    Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04245-8
  2. J Anesth. 2022 Dec 02.
    Pandemic and infodemic: the role of academic journals and preprints.
    Takashi Asai.
      
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Infodemic; Pandemic; Peer-review journals; Preprints
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-022-03149-1
  3. Natl Med J India. 2022 May-Jun;35(3):pii: 10.25259/NMJI-35-3-177. [Epub ahead of print]35(3): 177-179
    Publication ethics during the Covid times: Reflections on research integrity, authorship, peer review and editorial policies.
    Vijesh Sreedhar Kuttiatt, Ramesh P Menon, Ashwani Kumar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI-35-3-177
  4. BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 30. 12(11): e062425
    Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review.
    Tove Godskesen, Stefan Eriksson, Marilyn H Oermann, Sebastian Gabrielsson.
       OBJECTIVE: To systematically map the scholarly literature on predatory conferences and describe the present state of research and the prevalent attitudes about these conferences.
    METHODS: This scoping review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection). In addition, the included studies' reference lists were scanned for additional papers not found in the searches. Peer-reviewed publications were included irrespective of study design. Letters and commentary were included if they were peer reviewed. Editorials and literature reviews were excluded.
    RESULTS: From 809 initial publications, 20 papers were included in the review, from 12 countries and covered a wide range of science disciplines, from nursing/medicine to energy/technology and computer science. More than half were empirical and published after 2017. In most papers, a definition of the term predatory conferences was put forward. Spam email invitations with flattering language were the most common characteristics, and the conferences were often hosted by unknown organisations that used copied pictures without permission. High fees, lack of peer review, and a multidisciplinary scope were signal features. All papers explicitly or implicitly suggested possible reasons for participating in predatory conferences. Some reasons were related to the overall context of academic work, the nature of predatory conferences (eg, researchers falling prey to misleading information about a conference or choosing a conference based on an attractive location) and the personal characteristics of researchers. Only one paper reported empirically identified reasons for participating in predatory conferences. The three countermeasures proposed most frequently to deal with predatory conferences were increasing education, emphasising responsibilities of universities and funders, and publishing lists of predatory publishers associated with conferences.
    CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a scarcity of research concerning predatory conferences. Future empirical as well as fully analytical research should be encouraged by funders, journals and research institutions.
    Keywords:  medical ethics; qualitative research; statistics & research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062425
  5. BMJ. 2022 Nov 28. 379 e071517
    Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study.
    Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Joseph S Ross, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, David S Egilman, Esteve Fernández, Mónica Pérez-Ríos.
       OBJECTIVES: To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.
    DESIGN: Cross sectional study.
    SETTING: The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.
    PARTICIPANTS: All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.
    RESULTS: 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.
    CONCLUSIONS: Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Nov 30.
    The Great Inflation: How COVID-19 affected the Journal Impact Factor of high impact medical journals.
    Panagiotis Giannos, Orestis Delardas.
       BACKGROUND: The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today's research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and funders distribute their resources. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the "gold standard of scholarly assessment".
    OBJECTIVE: We aimed to comprehensively compare the productivity trends of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature as well as track their evolution and scholarly impact across three consecutive calendar years.
    METHODS: We took as an example six high impact general medicine journals (Annals, BMJ, Lancet, Nature, NEJM and JAMA) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual Ifs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their publication and citation rates by journal.
    RESULTS: A significant increase (P=.03) in IF change for COVID-19 manuscripts published from 2019 to 2020 was seen (Annals: 283%, BMJ: 199%, Lancet: 392%, Nature: 80%, NEJM: 196%, JAMA: 208%), against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts from 2019 to 2021 (Annals: Z=3.4, P<.001; BMJ: Z=4.3, P<.001; Lancet: Z=3.5, P<.001; Nature: Z=7.1, P<.001; NEJM: Z=4.7, P<.001; JAMA: Z=3.8, P<.001).The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked 10 months earlier than the publication rate.
    CONCLUSIONS: The rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasised the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust on journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigour perceived by academia and the society. Loss of confidence towards procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivise authors to exploit the publication process by monopolising their research on COVID-19 and encourage them towards publishing in journals of predatory behaviour.
    CLINICALTRIAL:
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/43089
  7. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2022 Dec 01.
    Mitigating potential bias in peer review at IFAR.
    Timothy L Smith, Justin Turner, Sandra Lin, Amber Luong.
      
    Keywords:  allergic rhinitis; rhinology workforce; statistics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.23113
  8. Health Serv Insights. 2022 ;15 11786329221139416
    What More Can We Do in Peer Review to Achieve Equity in Scientific Publication?
    Xiaojing Hu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329221139416
  9. BMJ. 2022 Nov 29. 379 o2886
    Regression towards the mean-a plea for civility in peer review.
    Rahul Tony Rao, Beth Bareham.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2886
  10. Laryngorhinootologie. 2022 Nov 27.
    [Predatory journals in otorhinolaryngology].
    Jan Christoffer Lüers, Stefanie Jansen, Jens Peter Klußmann.
       BACKGROUND: Pseudo-scientific predatory journals have been making a commercially lucrative business with scientific manuscripts for many years misusing the "open access" model by offering a fast and uncomplicated publication of scientific manuscripts in return for publication fees. The question arises as to whether the specialty field of otorhinolaryngology has already been infiltrated by this bad practice.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pseudo-scientific fake manuscript was sent to 20 journals in which the journal title indicated an otorhinolaryngological content. Half of the journals were traditional otorhinolaryngology journals, which publish a print edition and which are mainly financed by subscriptions and advertisements. The other half were journals that published exclusively according to the "open access" model. Various parameters of the journals and of the review process were evaluated.
    RESULTS: All 10 traditional ORL journals refused to publish the fake manuscript. Among the journals that published exclusively according to the "open access" model, there was one rejection of the manuscript, while 2 journals recommended a revision and 7 journals accepted the manuscript directly for publication.
    CONCLUSION: Predatory publishers and journals are also active in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Especially at journals that publish articles exclusively "open access" for a publication or processing fee, scientific authors should be careful and check the seriousness of the journal in advance by using recommended hints and tools.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1956-9479
  11. Crit Care Nurse. 2022 Dec 01. 42(6): 8-10
    Critical Care Nurse Needs You! Behind the Scenes of Peer Review.
    Annette M Bourgault.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2022310
  12. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 12;70(12): 4099-4100
    Lessons learnt from the International Peer Review Week 2022 with the theme - "Research Integrity: Creating and supporting trust in research".
    Sabyasachi Sengupta.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2920_22
  13. Cad Saude Publica. 2022 ;pii: S0102-311X2022001100201. [Epub ahead of print]38(11): e00187422
    Preprints in CSP.
    Luciana Dias de Lima, Marilia Sá Carvalho, Luciana Correia Alves.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT187422
  14. J Paediatr Child Health. 2022 Dec;58(12): 2141-2142
    Publish, flourish or perish: The ups and downs of journal publication.
    David Isaacs.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.16137
  15. Nurs Crit Care. 2022 Nov;27(6): 736-738
    The postgraduate literature review: Turning your chapter into a scholarly publication.
    Wendy Walker, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Sarah Vollam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12853
  16. FEBS Open Bio. 2022 Dec;12(12): 2100-2101
    Ensuring image integrity in the digital age.
    Duncan E Wright, Miguel A De la Rosa.
      FEBS Open Bio and our fellow FEBS Press journals have a strong commitment to maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature. The life sciences, in particular, are suffering from an ongoing reproducibility crisis, and this may in part be fuelled by mistakes, manipulation or outright fabrication of the presented data. We were recently made aware of several articles published in FEBS Open Bio that appear to contain full or partial duplications of images from other published articles in a different scientific context. In most of these cases, the duplications were taken from previously published papers. After thorough investigation and subsequent discussion within FEBS Press and with Wiley's Integrity in Publishing Group, we have retracted most of these articles.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13495
  17. J Rheumatol. 2022 Dec 01. pii: jrheum.220895. [Epub ahead of print]
    Impact Factor Jumps After the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study in Rheumatology Journals.
    Abril-Carolina Mendoza-Lopez, Leslie-Marisol Gonzalez-Hermosillo, Ernesto Roldan-Valadez.
      "As the publishing sector continues to grow, the need to measure the quality of the produced science grows in parallel...." This assertion is extracted from a study that assessed the increment in the value of scientometric indexes when they were calculated using citations and open access publications in rheumatology journals.1.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.220895
  18. Dan Med J. 2022 Nov 04. pii: A06220369. [Epub ahead of print]69(12):
    How to produce a rapid systematic review - a review article.
    Jacob Rosenberg, Siv Fonnes, Stina Öberg, Kristoffer Andresen.
      A rapid review is a synthesis of available evidence in which some components of the review process are modified slightly to shorten the process. This will require tight control as well as day-to-day scientific mentoring. The typical rapid review has a focused research question covering a narrow and well-defined clinical problem. With a continuous focus on some elements in the planning and production phases, it is realistic to produce a rapid scoping or systematic review with or without meta-analysis within three months without compromising on scientific quality.
  19. Community Dent Health. 2022 Nov 30. 39(4): 218
    Editorial - Community Dental Health opens its archive of papers to all.
    P Robinson.
      Readers will have noticed the ways we have been modernising Community Dental Health this year. In March we dispensed with hard copies of the journal, publishing it only online. This change was in line with our subscribers' reading behaviours and minimised our environmental impact by reducing the carbon footprints of printing, of using paper and of postage. Subscribers can now also access papers as soon as they are accepted, ahead of publication. Our newly commissioned reviews digest key topics in dental public health to help busy readers keep up with emerging knowledge. In addition, our move to prioritise systematic reviews, by accelerating peer review and fast-tracking publication ensures subscribers' confidence that they are reading the most up to date evidence in our discipline.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_Dec22Editorial01
  20. Anaesthesia. 2022 Sep;77(9): 1018-1022
    Position statement from the Editors of Anaesthesia on equity, diversity and inclusion.
    Editors
      There is a need to prioritise equity, diversity and inclusion within anaesthesia and medicine as a whole. This position statement outlines the Anaesthesia Editors' current policies and practices aiming to achieve equity, represent the diversity of our specialty and actively include people engaged with this journal and beyond. We will define, promote and embed principles of equity, diversity and inclusion across all our work. We will monitor and report author and editor characteristics and ensure recruitment practices are transparent and adhere to our principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. We will attempt to remove systemic barriers restricting those from under-represented groups from progressing into leadership roles within anaesthesia. We will respond to threats and barriers to the principles and practices we set. With these principles and specific actions we undertake, we aim to be pro-active rather than reactive. We commit to embracing and embedding equity, diversity and inclusion in all our practices and regularly reviewing, improving and updating our policies and practices.
    Keywords:  diversity; equality; inclusion; position statement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15763
  21. Neurocirugia (Astur : Engl Ed). 2022 Nov 28. pii: S2529-8496(22)00077-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Scientific authorship in neurosurgery.
    Rubén Diana-Martín, Pedro David Delgado-López.
       INTRODUCTION: Assessment of scientific bibliographic production is a complex issue, mainly based on the impact factor (IF) of the journals and the h index, that quantifies the number of cites an author receives. In order to estimate the bibliographic production and the influence of co-authorship among Spanish neurosurgeons, we performed a PubMed search aimed to identify all papers published by a sample of neurosurgeons.
    METHODS: Cross-sectional observational and regional study. We identified a sample of 183 neurosurgeons from Madrid and Castilla y León Autonomous Communities. The bibliometric information was gathered in March 2022 via PubMed free access website. For each author we registered the type of journal, total number of articles, order of appearance in the authors' list, total IF, the proportion of articles signed as first or second author (Personal Authorship Quotient [PAQ]) and the percentage of IF attributable to those articles (Personal Impact Quotient [PIQ]).
    RESULTS: A total of 3,592 articles from 183 authors were published in 412 different journals, of which only 9.9% were pure neurosurgical journals. Only 17 neurosurgeons (9,3%) had published at least one article as unique author. The average number of articles per neurosurgeon was 20 (median 9) of which 57.7% were published in neurosurgical journals, and 22,2% in Neurocirugía (official publication of the SENEC). The average PAQ was 0.367 (median 0.364) and the average PIQ was 0.317 (median 0.251). Both proportions tended to decrease as the number of publications increased.
    CONCLUSIONS: On average, Spanish neurosurgeons publish half of their articles in neurosurgical journals, appear as first or second author in one third of the cases, and the IF attributable to these papers comprise 25% of the total IF. The PAQ and PIQ provide bibliometric information that minimizes the enlarging effect on curriculum of massive co-authorship and allow comparisons among authors and different scientific fields.
    Keywords:  Article; Artículo.; Authorship; Autoría; Bibliometrics; Bibliometría; Factor de impacto; Impact factor; Manuscript; Manuscrito; Neurocirugía; Neurosurgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucie.2022.11.007
  22. Nervenarzt. 2022 Dec;93(12): 1189-1192
    [The German Society for Neurology and its journals : Or: back to the future-Der Nervenarzt has survived!]
    Martin Grond, Werner Hacke.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-022-01406-y
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.