bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–12–11
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality.
  2. Comparison of Clinical Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles.
  3. Evaluation of Publication of COVID-19-Related Articles Initially Presented as Preprints.
  4. eLife's new model and its impact on science communication.
  5. Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.
  6. Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science's Credibility.
  7. An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and online engagement.
  8. A tale of flawed e-cigarette research undetected by defective peer review process.
  9. Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers.
  10. Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal's Impact Factor.
  11. [Open Science: Emergency Response or the New Normal?]
  12. Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis.
  13. «I Do Not Have Time»-Is This the End of Peer Review in Public Health Sciences?
  14. Research Software vs. Research Data II: Protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation in the Open Science context.
  15. Physicians and Medical Researchers Are Evidence-based Altruistic.
  16. Characteristics, methodological, and reporting quality of scoping reviews published in nursing journals: A systematic review.
  17. The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Influence on Resident Research, 2015 to 2019.
  18. Third decade of the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology: reflections of an author, reviewer, and editor.
  19. Precarious Times, Professional Tensions: The Ethics of Migration Research and the Drive for Scientific Accountability.
  20. Reflections on my remote internship with Biology Open.
  1. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Dec 02. pii: S0277-9536(22)00898-X. [Epub ahead of print]317 115592
    Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality.
    John Frank, Rosemary Foster, Claudia Pagliari.
      For two decades, the international scholarly publishing community has been embroiled in a divisive debate about the best model for funding the dissemination of scientific research. Some may assume that this debate has been thoroughly resolved in favour of the Open Access (OA) model of scientific publishing. Recent commentaries reveal a less settled reality. This narrative review aims to lay out the nature of these deep divisions among the sector's stakeholders, reflects on their systemic drivers and considers the future prospects for actualising OA's intended benefits and surmounting its risks and costs. In the process, we highlight some of inequities OA presents for junior or unfunded researchers, and academics from resource-poor environments, for whom an increasing body of evidence shows clear evidence of discrimination and injustice caused by Article Processing Charges. The authors are university-appointed researchers working the UK and South Africa, trained in disciplines ranging from medicine and epidemiology to social science and digital science. We have no vested interest in any particular model of scientific publication, and no conflicts of interest to declare. We believe the issues we identify are pertinent to almost all research disciplines.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges (APC); Global justice/inequalities in research publication; Open access; Predatory journals; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592
  2. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 01. 5(12): e2245847
    Comparison of Clinical Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles.
    Guneet Janda, Vishal Khetpal, Xiaoting Shi, Joseph S Ross, Joshua D Wallach.
       Importance: Preprints have been widely adopted to enhance the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. Concerns remain that early, public access to preliminary medical research has the potential to propagate misleading or faulty research that has been conducted or interpreted in error.
    Objective: To evaluate the concordance among study characteristics, results, and interpretations described in preprints of clinical studies posted to medRxiv that are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (preprint-journal article pairs).
    Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed all preprints describing clinical studies that were initially posted to medRxiv in September 2020 and subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal as of September 15, 2022.
    Main Outcomes and Measures: For preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses that measured health-related outcomes, the sample size, primary end points, corresponding results, and overarching conclusions were abstracted and compared. Sample size and results from primary end points were considered concordant if they had exact numerical equivalence.
    Results: Among 1399 preprints first posted on medRxiv in September 2020, a total of 1077 (77.0%) had been published as of September 15, 2022, a median of 6 months (IQR, 3-8 months) after preprint posting. Of the 547 preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, or meta-analyses, 293 (53.6%) were related to COVID-19. Of the 535 pairs reporting sample sizes in both sources, 462 (86.4%) were concordant; 43 (58.9%) of the 73 pairs with discordant sample sizes had larger samples in the journal publication. There were 534 pairs (97.6%) with concordant and 13 pairs (2.4%) with discordant primary end points. Of the 535 pairs with numerical results for the primary end points, 434 (81.1%) had concordant primary end point results; 66 of the 101 discordant pairs (65.3%) had effect estimates that were in the same direction and were statistically consistent. Overall, 526 pairs (96.2%) had concordant study interpretations, including 82 of the 101 pairs (81.2%) with discordant primary end point results.
    Conclusions and Relevance: Most clinical studies posted as preprints on medRxiv and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals had concordant study characteristics, results, and final interpretations. With more than three-fourths of preprints published in journals within 24 months, these results may suggest that many preprints report findings that are consistent with the final peer-reviewed publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.45847
  3. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 01. 5(12): e2245745
    Evaluation of Publication of COVID-19-Related Articles Initially Presented as Preprints.
    Carl Llor, Ana Moragas, Manfred Maier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.45745
  4. Elife. 2022 Dec 08. pii: e84816. [Epub ahead of print]11
    eLife's new model and its impact on science communication.
    Lara Urban, Mariana De Niz, Florencia Fernández-Chiappe, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Laura K M Han, Devang Mehta, Regina Mencia, Divyansh Mittal, Elizabeth Ochola, Carolina Paz Quezada, Facundo Romani, Lana Sinapayen, Andy Tay, Aalok Varma, Lamis Yahia Mohamed Elkheir.
      The eLife Early-Career Advisory Group discusses eLife's new peer review and publishing model, and how the whole process of scientific communication could be improved for the benefit of early-career researchers and the entire scientific community.
    Keywords:  early-career researchers; none; peer review; point of view; preprints; research assessment; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84816
  5. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 Dec 07. pii: gkac1139. [Epub ahead of print]
    Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.
    Jennifer A Byrne, Yasunori Park, Reese A K Richardson, Pranujan Pathmendra, Mengyi Sun, Thomas Stoeger.
      Human gene research generates new biology insights with translational potential, yet few studies have considered the health of the human gene literature. The accessibility of human genes for targeted research, combined with unreasonable publication pressures and recent developments in scholarly publishing, may have created a market for low-quality or fraudulent human gene research articles, including articles produced by contract cheating organizations known as paper mills. This review summarises the evidence that paper mills contribute to the human gene research literature at scale and outlines why targeted gene research may be particularly vulnerable to systematic research fraud. To raise awareness of targeted gene research from paper mills, we highlight features of problematic manuscripts and publications that can be detected by gene researchers and/or journal staff. As improved awareness and detection could drive the further evolution of paper mill-supported publications, we also propose changes to academic publishing to more effectively deter and correct problematic publications at scale. In summary, the threat of paper mill-supported gene research highlights the need for all researchers to approach the literature with a more critical mindset, and demand publications that are underpinned by plausible research justifications, rigorous experiments and fully transparent reporting.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1139
  6. Philosophia (Ramat Gan). 2022 Nov 22. 1-4
    Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science's Credibility.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0
  7. J Dent. 2022 Dec 03. pii: S0300-5712(22)00437-7. [Epub ahead of print] 104385
    An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and online engagement.
    Dalya Al-Moghrabi, Rana S Albishri, Rahaf D AlShehri, Sarab Abu Arqub, Aslam Alkadhimi, Padhraig S Fleming.
       OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals.
    METHODS: Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases.
    RESULTS: A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. From the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found between PL and PP groups.
    CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Researchers, traders and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.
    Keywords:  editorial policies; ethics in publication; medical ethics; open access publishing; scientific publishing; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104385
  8. Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Dec 08.
    A tale of flawed e-cigarette research undetected by defective peer review process.
    Polosa Riccardo, Farsalinos Konstantinos.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-03163-x
  9. Qual Quant. 2022 Nov 29. 1-33
    Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers.
    Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli.
      In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors' misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Frauds; Misconduct; Peer-review; Retracted; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01587-3
  10. World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Nov 21. 28(43): 6168-6202
    Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal's Impact Factor.
    Jin-Lei Wang, Xiang Li, Jia-Ru Fan, Jia-Ping Yan, Ze-Mao Gong, Yue Zhao, Dong-Mei Wang, Li Ma, Na Ma, Diao-Mei Guo, Lian-Sheng Ma.
       BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF) is often used to evaluate the relative reputation and quality of academic journals in their respective fields, and can greatly influence the quality and scope of subsequent manuscript submissions. Therefore, many if not all academic journals are interested in increasing their JIF, to improve their academic impact.
    AIM: To determine the importance of the integrity of the editorial and publication process in improving the academic influence of academic journals and the JIF of academic journals.
    METHODS: In this paper, we describe our statistical analysis of bibliometric factors - including the 2021 JIFs released in the Journal Citation Report™ 2022, discipline rankings, received and published articles in 2019-2021, and webpage visits and downloads - for seven journals published by Baishideng Publishing Group (Baishideng) and indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded™; ultimately, we introduce and discuss the editing and publishing processes of Baishideng's journals in their entirety, as they form the basis for our objective of safeguarding and bolstering integrity in academic publication.
    RESULTS: For the seven journals assessed, their 2021 JIFs were basically unchanged from 2020, with the current metric ranging from 5.374 for World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) to 1.534 for World Journal of Clinical Cases (WJCC). Further assessments of the journals' bibliometrics from 2019 to 2020, showed that World Journal of Stem Cells has the highest self-citation rate (1.43%) and World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has the lowest (0.21%). Additionally, the total 3012 articles published during this period were cited by more than 20000 articles in approximately 8000 academic journals. Of note, the 1102 articles published in WJG were cited by articles in 3059 journals, among which 171 journals have a JIF of > 10, including internationally renowned academic journals such as CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (2021 JIF 286.130, record count: 1), Lancet (2021 JIF 202.731, record count: 4), Nature Reviews Immunology (2021 JIF 108.555, record count: 2), Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2021 JIF 73.082, record count: 9), Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2021 JIF 45.042, record count: 8), Gastroenterology (2021 JIF 33.883, record count: 19), and Gut (2021 JIF 31.793, record count: 21). This suggests that Baishideng's journals have been widely recognized for their academic quality. In the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database, all seven Baishideng-published journals obtained a 2022 Journal Article Influence Index (JAII). For example, WJG has a 2022 JAII of 22.048, ranking 18th out of 102 journals in the field of gastroenterology & hepatology in the RCA, with 469909 total citations (6/102) and 21313 total articles (5/102). The numbers of manuscripts received and published in 2021 were both higher than those in 2019-2020. For example, WJCC received a total of 3650 manuscripts in 2021, which is 91.1% higher than those in 2019-2020 (average: 1910 papers/year). In 2021, WJCC published 1296 articles, representing an increase of 105.1% compared to those in 2019-2020 (average: 632 articles/year). The numbers of webpage visits and downloads received by the seven journals have increased year by year. For example, the number of total visits received by WJG in 2019-2021 was 1974052 in 2019, 2317835 in 2020 (increased by 17.4% compared with that in 2019), and 2652555 in 2021 (increased by 4.4% compared with that in 2020). The visitors were from more than 220 countries and regions worldwide, such as the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. Open access (OA) plays a vital role in improving the quality, efficiency, transparency, and integrity of academic journal publishing. From 2019 to 2021, a total of 5543 OA articles were published in the seven journals, of which 2083 (37.6%) were invited and published free-of-charge. During the same period, 1683 articles were published in WJG, and the authors were from more than 70 countries and regions. For the total 5543 articles published in the seven journals from 2019 to 2021, 3903 article quality tracking reports were received after the online publication of these articles. The quality of the articles was further evaluated through the Baishideng's article quality and author evaluation tracking system, with 4655 articles (84.0%) having received author evaluation and feedback, which contributes to tracking metrics for authors' satisfaction with the collective publication processes. From March 25, 2021 to June 28, 2022, the seven journals received a total of 424 reader evaluations and 229 letters from readers; this subsequent reader engagement demonstrates that the popularity of the published articles and the volume of their readership audience were improved through the reader evaluation system.
    CONCLUSION: Ultimately, the findings from our bibliometric assessments indicate that establishing, promoting and actively practicing processes that safeguard and bolster the integrity of the editing and publication process also help to improve the academic influence of academic journals, which itself is the cornerstone for improving JIF.
    Keywords:  Academic influence; Academic journal; Editing process; Journal Impact Factor; Language polishing; Open access; Peer review; Publishing process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i43.6168
  11. Acta Med Port. 2022 Dec 02. 35(12): 853-855
    [Open Science: Emergency Response or the New Normal?]
    Eloy Rodrigues.
      
    Keywords:  Access to Information; COVID-19; Information Dissemination; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.19200
  12. Eur J Oral Sci. 2022 Dec 08. e12908
    Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis.
    Eero Raittio, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Sergio E Uribe.
      We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal- and article-related information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.
    Keywords:  clinical trial protocols; conflict of interest; dentistry; information dissemination; open access publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12908
  13. Public Health Rev. 2022 ;43 1605407
    «I Do Not Have Time»-Is This the End of Peer Review in Public Health Sciences?
    Nino Künzli, Anke Berger, Katarzyna Czabanowska, Raquel Lucas, Andrea Madarasova Geckova, Sarah Mantwill, Olaf von dem Knesebeck.
      
    Keywords:  peer review crisis; post-publication peer review; pre-publication peer review; public health science journals; reviewer declines; reviewer incentives
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2022.1605407
  14. F1000Res. 2022 ;11 117
    Research Software vs. Research Data II: Protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation in the Open Science context.
    Teresa Gomez-Diaz, Tomas Recio.
      Background: Open Science seeks to render research outputs visible, accessible and reusable. In this context, Research Data and Research Software sharing and dissemination issues provide real challenges to the scientific community, as consequence of recent progress in political, legal and funding requirements. Methods: We take advantage from the approach we have developed in a precedent publication, in which we have highlighted the similarities between the Research Data and Research Software definitions. Results: The similarities between Research Data and Research Software definitions can be extended to propose protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation derived from those already proposed for Research Software dissemination and evaluation. We also analyze FAIR principles for these outputs. Conclusions: Our proposals here provide concrete instructions for Research Data and Research Software producers to make them more findable and accessible, as well as arguments to choose suitable dissemination platforms to complete the FAIR framework. Future work could analyze the potential extension of this parallelism to other kinds of research outputs that are disseminated under similar conditions to those of Research Data and Research Software, that is, without widely accepted publication procedures involving editors or other external actors and where the dissemination is usually restricted through the hands of the production team.
    Keywords:  FAIR principles.; Open Science; Research Data; Research Evaluation; Research Software; Research outputs’ dissemination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.78459.1
  15. Arthroscopy. 2022 12;pii: S0749-8063(22)00625-9. [Epub ahead of print]38(12): 3093-3094
    Physicians and Medical Researchers Are Evidence-based Altruistic.
    James H Lubowitz, Jefferson C Brand, Michael J Rossi.
      Volunteerism is actively seeking opportunities to assist others in need and sustaining these commitments at considerable personal cost. Altruism is the fact of caring about the needs of others and being helpful, even if one derives no personal benefit. As evidenced by medical and scientific research journal readers, reviewers, editors, authors, and leaders-physicians and medical researchers are evidence-based altruistic. While this is not unique to our profession, to care for others is the very essence of what we do.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.10.006
  16. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2022 Dec 09.
    Characteristics, methodological, and reporting quality of scoping reviews published in nursing journals: A systematic review.
    Brigitte Fong Yeong Woo, Wilson Wai San Tam, Michelle Y Williams, Jenna Qing Yun Ow Yong, Zu Yu Cheong, Yoke Chin Ong, Sum Nok Poon, Yong Shian Goh.
       INTRODUCTION: Given the diversity of the scope for inquiry and methodologies used in nursing research, the synthesis of primary research may not be as straightforward as conducting a meta-analysis or systematic review on clinical trials. Scoping reviews offer an option to nursing academics for inquiries involving a range of applications and interpretations. Given the continual advances in evidence-based research, it is, therefore, crucial for nursing to constantly substantiate its research capabilities and uphold standards in its research inquiry. Accordingly, an updated overview would be timely to characterize scoping reviews in the nursing literature. Hence this review aimed to examine the characteristics of scoping reviews published in nursing journals and evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews.
    DESIGN: A systematic review.
    METHODS: A comprehensive search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) were conducted. Scoping reviews published in English on or before December 31, 2020 were included, with the criterion that their publication had been in nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (2020 Science Edition) of the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. A standardized data extraction form was used for data collection, and a 29-item checklist was developed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed independently by four reviewers and subsequently counter-checked by another two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the included papers, and narrative synthesis was undertaken to explain the results.
    RESULTS: This review included 422 papers from 88 nursing journals. They were published between 2008 and 2021 (median year 2019). Only 15 (3.5%) reviews reported accessible protocols, and 63 (15.0%) presented data on their critical appraisal of the included sources of evidence. Poor reporting of the selection of sources of evidence and data extraction was also identified. Overall, the 422 included reviews had complied with 20 (median [range: 9-27]) of the 29 items on the checklist.
    CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews have garnered wider acceptance in nursing research, of which the scopes and methodologies exhibit much diversity. Our systematic review has provided insights into existing scoping reviews published in nursing journals through our characterization of them and appraisal of their methodological and reporting quality. However, our findings underline several areas needing improvement: the lack of transparency, the absence of critical appraisal, non-compliance to established checklists, and inconsistencies in the data processing.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Appraising included sources of evidence and maintaining transparency in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews increases the practical utility of scoping reviews.
    Keywords:  methodology; nursing; quality assessment; scoping review; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12861
  17. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023 Mar-Apr;8(2):8(2): 101121
    The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Influence on Resident Research, 2015 to 2019.
    Kunal K Sindhu, Jared P Rowley, William H Smith, Anthony D Nehlsen, Andrew W Smith, Eric J Lehrer, Brianna M Jones, Michael Buckstein, Stanislav Lazarev, Kenneth E Rosenzweig.
       Purpose: While a rising share of scientific research articles are being published in open access (OA) journals, their impact on resident research in radiation oncology is unknown. Thus, we sought to determine the number, content, and costs of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles radiation oncology residents in the United States (US) published in OA journals in recent years.
    Methods and Materials: We built a database of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We then classified each journal in which these articles appeared as either OA or non-OA and obtained the current article-processing charge (APC) for each publication that appeared in an OA journal.
    Results: The residents in this study published 2637 first-author, PubMed-searchable articles, 555 of which (21.0%) appeared in 138 OA journals. The number of publications in OA journals per resident increased from 0.47 for the class of 2015 to 0.79 for the class of 2019. Publications in OA journals garnered fewer citations than those in non-OA journals (8.9 vs 14.9, P < .01). Furthermore, 90.6% of OA journals levy an APC for original research reports (median, $1896), which is positively correlated with their 2019 impact factor (r = 0.63, P < .01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 and appeared to increase over the study period.
    Conclusions: The number of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by graduating US radiation oncology residents in OA journals rose significantly between 2015 and 2019. To maximize the benefits of OA publishing in the future, US radiation oncology residents will need to ensure that they use vetted OA journals to publish their research findings and avoid predatory journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101121
  18. J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Dec 06.
    Third decade of the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology: reflections of an author, reviewer, and editor.
    Jeroen J Bax.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-022-03161-8
  19. Int Migr Rev. 2022 Mar;56(1): 4-32
    Precarious Times, Professional Tensions: The Ethics of Migration Research and the Drive for Scientific Accountability.
    Irene Bloemraad, Cecilia Menjívar.
      How should migration scholars navigate tensions between our ethical responsibilities to research participants and growing "open science" calls for data transparency, replication, and accountability? We elaborate a three-step process to navigate these tensions. First, researchers must understand core principles behind open-science initiatives and the mandates of research ethics boards, especially those related to privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm, and take them seriously. Second, migration researchers must think beyond routinized or mandated procedures to carefully consider the unique vulnerabilities of migrants in their study, which depend on socio-political context. Third, if vulnerabilities are significant, migration researchers should modify (or challenge) procedures elaborated in the name of open science or routinized research ethic board mandates, if inappropriate for their study. We, thus, encourage migration scholars to engage with open-science advocates but also to educate colleagues on migrants' vulnerabilities and to double-down on data security, including vis-à-vis government authorities, as evolving technologies continue to change research practices.
    Keywords:  open science; research ethics; vulnerability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183211014455
  20. Biol Open. 2022 Dec 15. pii: bio059726. [Epub ahead of print]11(12):
    Reflections on my remote internship with Biology Open.
    Sophie L Johnson.
      Sophie Johnson recounts her experience completing a remote internship at Biology Open, hosted by Editor-in-Chief Steve Kelly. Sophie is a third year BBSRC Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) PhD student studying plant vein development at the University of Oxford. She was keen to get some experience in academic publishing and so carried out a PIPS (Professional Internships for PhD Students) placement working with Biology Open.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.059726
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.