bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–01–08
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The reporting requirements of case reports and adherence of case report reporting guidelines in medical journals: an analysis of the authors' guide sections.
  2. Unearned authorship pervades science.
  3. Jot: guiding journal selection with suitability metrics.
  4. The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals.
  5. Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States.
  6. Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals.
  7. Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards.
  8. Researchers, authors and consent.
  9. Three decades of the Croatian Medical Journal - can small non-profit journal compete in the bibliometrics arena?
  10. How international are the editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery?: A STROBE-compliant cross-sectional study.
  11. Women Representation on Editorial Boards in Latin America Journals: Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Surgery, Anesthesia, and Obstetrics.
  12. How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts.
  1. J Med Case Rep. 2023 Jan 05. 17(1): 2
    The reporting requirements of case reports and adherence of case report reporting guidelines in medical journals: an analysis of the authors' guide sections.
    Abolfazl Taheri, Peyman Adibi, Mojtaba Sabbagh Jafari, Marzieh Saeedizadeh, Alireza Rahimi, Alireza Abbasi.
       BACKGROUND: Owing to the growth of case reports and changes in the policy of journals in publishing this evidence, the need to standardize them is felt more than before. Therefore, in this study, the authors' guide of medical journals indexed in the Scopus database that published most of the case reports has been analyzed to identify the reporting requirements and emerging case report types.
    METHODS: A total of 50 journals were selected from the Scopus citation database (the world's largest knowledge base) that published most of the case reports. These and the authors' guideline section on the types and requirements of writing case reports were analyzed by inductive content analysis.
    RESULTS: Most of the case reports were published in the fields of dermatology and surgery and general medicine. Reporting requirements in author's guide are grouped in four categories: (1) reasons for publication or content value, (2) emphasis on the patient consent form and confidentiality, (3) emphasizing the constraints on the word count and limitation, and (4) recommendation for structure and reporting elements. In terms of adherence to the reporting guidelines, 76% of journals do not adhere to any reporting guideline. In addition, 13 types of case reports were identified in these journals, among which traditional case reports, clinical image, letters, and case series were the most widely used formats.
    CONCLUSIONS: Improving the publication processes of case reports has been left unattended by international organizations. The policies of journals need to become more integrated, and reporting guidelines should be modified or redeveloped to enhance the quality of publications, cover different reporting requirements, and consequently, benefit from the evidence value available in case reports.
    Keywords:  Authors’ guide; CARE guideline; Case report; Medical journalism; Reporting guideline; Reporting requirements
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-022-03710-2
  2. Nature. 2023 Jan 05.
    Unearned authorship pervades science.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00016-1
  3. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Dec 08. 110(3): 376-380
    Jot: guiding journal selection with suitability metrics.
    Stephen G Gaffney, Jeffrey P Townsend.
      Researchers grapple with a challenging and consequential decision each time they choose a journal for manuscript submission. There are several online tools that attempt to identify appropriate journals for a manuscript, but each of these tools has shortcomings in terms of the journal data they provide and the exploration functionality they offer-and not one of these tools is open source. Jot is a free and open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript's title, abstract, and (optionally) citations. Jot gathers a wealth of data on journal quality, impact, fit, and open access options that can be explored through a dashboard of linked, interactive visualizations.
    Keywords:  Journal selection; bibliometrics; data integration; open access publishing; open source software; scientific publishing; visualization; web application
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1499
  4. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023 Jan 04. 1-10
    The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals.
    Helen L Long, Lee Drown, Mariam El Amin.
       PURPOSE: This study examined the effect of open access (OA) status on scholarly and societal metrics of impact (citation counts and altmetric scores, respectively) across manuscripts published in the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Journals.
    METHOD: Three thousand four hundred nineteen manuscripts published in four active ASHA Journals were grouped across three access statuses based on their availability to the public: Gold OA, Green OA, and Closed Access. Two linear mixed-effects models tested the effects of OA status on citation counts and altmetric scores of the manuscripts.
    RESULTS: Both Green OA and Gold OA significantly predicted a 2.70 and 5.21 respective increase in citation counts compared with Closed Access manuscripts (p < .001). Gold OA was estimated to predict a 25.7-point significant increase in altmetric scores (p < .001), but Green OA was only marginally significant (p = .68) in predicting a 1.44 increase in altmetric scores relative to Closed Access manuscripts.
    DISCUSSION: Communication sciences and disorders (CSD) research that is fully open receives more online attention and, overall, more scientific attention than research that is paywalled or available through Green OA methods. Additional research is needed to understand secondary variables affecting these and other scholarly and societal metrics of impact across studies in CSD. Ongoing support and incentives to reduce the inequities of OA publishing are critical for continued scientific advancement. Open Science Form: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21766919.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00315
  5. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Dec 08. 110(3): 294-305
    Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States.
    Bridget C Conlogue, Neyda V Gilman, Louisa M Holmes.
       Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory."
    Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF).
    Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so.
    Conclusion: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.
    Keywords:  Open access; academic publishing; nurses; pharmacists; predatory publishing; scholarly communication; tenure
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1377
  6. Am J Clin Pathol. 2023 Jan 03. pii: aqac147. [Epub ahead of print]
    Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals.
    Jeremy W Jacobs, Amarilis A Martin, Allison R Larson, Eric A Gehrie, Julie K Silver, Garrett S Booth.
       OBJECTIVES: Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated.
    METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.
    RESULTS: Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637.
    CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.
    Keywords:  Gender equity; Industry payments; Journal editors; Open Payments; Pathology; Sunshine Act
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqac147
  7. Nature. 2023 01;613(7942): 9
    Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards.
    Daniël Lakens.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04504-8
  8. Case Rep Womens Health. 2022 Oct;36 e00449
    Researchers, authors and consent.
    Marc Cornock.
      
    Keywords:  Authors; Consent; Publishing ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crwh.2022.e00449
  9. Croat Med J. 2022 12 31. 63(6): 501-507
    Three decades of the Croatian Medical Journal - can small non-profit journal compete in the bibliometrics arena?
    Nataša Kovačić, Jelka Petrak.
      
  10. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Dec 23. 101(51): e32400
    How international are the editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery?: A STROBE-compliant cross-sectional study.
    Zhiwei Jia, Donghua Liu, Jiao Xu, Qiang Wang, Shi Yin, Longyu Zhang, Xingxuan Li, Bo Qian, Yaohong Wu, Tianlin Wen.
      Very low proportions of publications from low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) have been proved in multiple fields. Some researchers from these countries believe that there is a biased attitude of editors against their studies. Under-representation of editorial board members from LAMIC were revealed in many research fields. However, it has not been investigated in the field of foot and ankle surgery. The current study aimed to analyze the composition of the editorial board members in leading foot and ankle journals, and to provide the international representation of editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery. Five leading journals in the field of foot and ankle surgery were included. The editorial board members were collected from the official websites of these journals. The countries of board members were classified based on World Bank. The board compositions of the journals were analyzed. In total, 229 editorial board members were identified. These editors were from 29 countries. The United States (29.69%) had the greatest number of editors, followed by the United Kingdom (20.52%), Australia (8.30%), Italy (6.11%), and Germany (5.68%). When the editors were classified by regions, 49.34% of board members were from Europe & Central Asia, followed by North America (31.44%), East Asia & Pacific (14.41%), Latin America & Caribbean (2.62%), and Middle East & North Africa (2.18%). No editors were from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. A total of 217 editors (94.76%) were from high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries (3.06%), and lower-middle-income countries (2.18%). No members were from low-income countries. There is a lack of international representation on editorial boards of leading foot and ankle journals. Editorial board members in the field of foot and ankle surgery are largely composed by editors from high-income countries with sever under-representation of LAMIC.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032400
  11. World J Surg. 2023 Jan 01.
    Women Representation on Editorial Boards in Latin America Journals: Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Surgery, Anesthesia, and Obstetrics.
    Letícia Nunes Campos, Abbie Naus, Ayla Gerk Rangel, Gabriela Rangel Brandão, Isabella Faria, Tayana Assomptia Jean Pierre, Camila Verônica Souza Freire, Sofia Schmitt Schlindwein, Brenda Feres, Sofia Wagemaker, Lucas Sousa Salgado, Roseanne Ferreira, Júlia Loyola Ferreira.
       BACKGROUND: Inequitable representation in journal editorial boards may impact women's career progression across surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) specialties. However, data from Latin America are lacking. We evaluated women's representation on editorial boards of Latin America SAO journals in 2021.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, retrieving journals through Scimago Journal and Country Rank 2020. Journals were included if active, focused on SAO topics, and publicly provided information on editorial board staff. Editorial board member names and positions were extracted from journals' websites. Members were classified into senior (e.g., editor-in-chief), academic (e.g., reviewer), and non-academic roles (e.g., administrative office). Women's representation was predicted from first names using Genderize.io. The number of women SAO physicians per country was obtained from articles and governmental reports.
    RESULTS: We included 19 of 25 identified journals and analyzed 1,318 names. Three anesthesiology, seven obstetric, and nine surgical journals represented five Latin American countries. Women held 17% (224/1,318) of board positions [p < 0.0001; 95% CI(0.14, 0.19)]. Women held fewer academic roles (14.3%, 155/1,084) compared to senior [28.9%, 64/221 (p < 0.001)] and non-academic roles [38.4%, 5/13 (p = 0.042)]. Surgical journals had fewer women (7.7%, 58/752) compared to anesthesia [25.5%, 52/204 (p = 0.006)] and obstetrics [31.5%, 114/362 (p < 0.001)]. Women's proportion on editorial boards increased according to the number of women SAO physicians per country (p < 0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: Our study assessed the composition of editorial boards from Latin America SAO journals and demonstrated that women remain underrepresented. Our findings highlight the need for regional strategies to advance women's careers across SAO specialties.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06872-8
  12. Res Synth Methods. 2023 Jan 05.
    How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts.
    Timothy H Barker, Danielle Pollock, Jennifer C Stone, Miloslav Klugar, Anna M Scott, Cindy Stern, Rick Wiechula, Larissa Shamseer, Edoardo Aromataris, Amanda Ross-White, Zachary Munn.
      Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.
    Keywords:  evidence synthesis; fraudulent data; predatory journals; predatory publishing; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.