bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–01–15
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists.
  2. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Programs on Writing Scientific Research.
  3. "The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice.
  4. Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters' research misconduct case.
  5. Citation of studies by research fraudsters in medical journals.
  6. Alzheimer's drug saga prompts journal to scrutinize whistle-blowers.
  7. Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.
  8. Submit It Again! Learning From Rejected Manuscripts.
  9. Dear Dr. Dermatoethicist: Ethics of Conflicts of Interest in Medical Authorship.
  10. Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery.
  11. Author support and a high-quality publishing experience.
  12. Further thoughts on ethics in publication.
  13. Becoming an Effective Manuscript Reviewer.
  14. How to Be a Great Peer Reviewer.
  15. Peer review: improving feedback.
  16. How to write a revised manuscript in clinical medicine.
  17. Serving as a reviewer.
  18. Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility (the 3 R's) in the Scientific Publishing Landscape: ASM'S Pre-Publication Proactive Approaches.
  19. Cooperation and Scientific Contribution: The Search for a Common Nexus.
  20. Missing the forest-plot for the trees.
  21. Toward open and reproducible epidemiology.
  22. Lessons learned from a decade as an editor of scientific journals.
  23. Turning a page: remaining a top competitor in an evolving publication ecosystem.
  24. Headache at a Janus moment: Reflecting back on the past 20 years of scholarly publishing and looking ahead to inevitable change.
  25. A century of the Journal of Helminthology.
  26. Stepping stones for the future-2022 major developments, journal metrics, and appreciation for reviewers.
  27. State of the Journal, 2022.
  28. Analysis of Inclusivity of Published Science Communication Curricula for Scientists and STEM Students.
  1. Nature. 2023 Jan 12.
    Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Mathematics and computing; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7
  2. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023 Jan 13.
    The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Programs on Writing Scientific Research.
    Mohamed Hammad.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03140-1
  3. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(1): e0280018
    "The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice.
    Mads Paludan Goddiksen, Mikkel Willum Johansen, Anna Catharina Armond, Christine Clavien, Linda Hogan, Nóra Kovács, Marcus Tang Merit, I Anna S Olsson, Una Quinn, Júlio Borlido Santos, Rita Santos, Céline Schöpfer, Orsolya Varga, P J Wall, Peter Sandøe, Thomas Bøker Lund.
      Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280018
  4. Account Res. 2023 Jan 11.
    Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters' research misconduct case.
    Salim Moussa, Aaron Charlton.
      The Dirk Smeesters case is one of the most well-documented and widely publicized cases of research misconduct to date. We investigate, using a case study approach, which of Smeesters' articles were found to be unreliable and recommended for retraction, which were retracted, and which were not. We also investigate by whom, when, and how these fraudulent articles were retracted. We found that only six retraction notices exist for the seven Smeesters' fraudulent articles that were recommended for retraction. For four of the six retraction notices, there were no explicit markers that clearly indicated who wrote them (e.g. the editor and/or the publisher). Smeesters' flawed articles were retracted in 97.6 days on average by the retracting journals. Retraction practices in these elite marketing and social psychology journals ranged from a seeming failure to retract (i.e. no record of a retraction notice) to a fair (i.e. informative and transparent) retraction. We also emphasize the ramifications of failing to retract an article whose findings are based on fabricated data. We conclude by listing the lessons learned from the Smeesters case.
    Keywords:  Dirk Smeesters; data fabrication; investigation; research integrity; retraction practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2164489
  5. Br J Anaesth. 2023 Jan 04. pii: S0007-0912(22)00659-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Citation of studies by research fraudsters in medical journals.
    Alexander Avidan, Joel Shapiro.
      
    Keywords:  citations; medical publishing; research misconduct; retraction; scientific misconduct; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.11.022
  6. Nature. 2023 Jan 12.
    Alzheimer's drug saga prompts journal to scrutinize whistle-blowers.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Alzheimer's disease; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00050-z
  7. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Jan 09. 23(1): 6
    Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.
    Jadbinder Seehra, Hadil Khraishi, Nikolaos Pandis.
       BACKGROUND: Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics.
    METHODS: An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics.
    RESULTS: In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001).
    CONCLUSION: The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.
    Keywords:  Oral health; Publication bias; Publishing trends; Selective reporting; Significance bias; Speciality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01795-3
  8. PRiMER. 2022 ;6 715584
    Submit It Again! Learning From Rejected Manuscripts.
    Kendall M Campbell, Judy C Washington, Donna Baluchi, José E Rodríguez.
      Rejection of manuscripts by academic journals can be devastating for the early-career family medicine faculty members. Taking experience from teaching early-career underrepresented in medicine faculty members writing and scholarship skills, we identify and explain five lessons to be learned from rejected manuscripts. The five lessons are: (1) rejections teach journal scope, (2) rejections teach process, (3) rejection should lead to resubmission, (4) rejections reflect writing effort, and (5) rejections happen to papers, not authors. Early-career family medicine faculty can use these lessons for reassurance and to adapt behaviors to remain in the scholarship arena.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2022.715584
  9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 Jan 05. pii: S0190-9622(23)00006-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Dear Dr. Dermatoethicist: Ethics of Conflicts of Interest in Medical Authorship.
    Sonal Muzumdar, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      
    Keywords:  Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME); conflict of interest; dermatoethics; ethics teaching; medical literature; medical publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2022.12.032
  10. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023 Jan 06.
    Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery.
    Amir Kachooei, Abdo Bachoura, David Hirsch, Pedro K Beredjiklian.
      The prevalence of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery continues to increase. These journals directly solicit authors, offering the advantages of open access and quick publication rates. Solicitation typically occurs in the form of e-mail communications, and the targets are usually identified as authors who have published other works in conventional publications. These predatory journals process manuscripts without peer review and plagiarism checks and often for a substantial publication fee. As a result, the scientific value of these publications is grossly suspect and has been considered a substantial threat to the quality of scientific discourse and scholarship. This affects not only the layperson reading the works but also investigators tricked into publishing in these venues. It has been estimated that several million US dollars per year are spent on these publications and, in many instances, using monies granted by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. This review aims to study the types of solicitation, evaluate the increasing prevalence in orthopaedic surgery, and offer methods to authors and readers to identify these journals to mitigate their negative effects.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00671
  11. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Dec 16. pii: S0022-5223(22)01345-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Author support and a high-quality publishing experience.
    G Alexander Patterson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.12.008
  12. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2023 Jan 13. 17531934221144979
    Further thoughts on ethics in publication.
    Wee Lam, Geoffrey Hooper.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934221144979
  13. Acad Radiol. 2023 Jan 07. pii: S1076-6332(23)00002-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Becoming an Effective Manuscript Reviewer.
    N Reed Dunnick.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.01.002
  14. ACG Case Rep J. 2022 Dec;9(12): e00932
    How to Be a Great Peer Reviewer.
    Tomoki Sempokuya, Nicholas McDonald, Mohammad Bilal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14309/crj.0000000000000932
  15. Climacteric. 2023 Feb;26(1): 1-2
    Peer review: improving feedback.
    Rod Baber.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2022.2152598
  16. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2023 Jan 10.
    How to write a revised manuscript in clinical medicine.
    Kenichi Sakakura, Hideo Fujita.
      Although there are several books or manuscripts regarding how to prepare scientific manuscripts, the literatures focusing on the preparation of the revised manuscript are sparse. The process of revisions may be different between experimental medicine and clinical medicine. In this review, we summarize the tips for the revised manuscript in clinical medicine. When the authors receive the invitation of revisions from the editors, the authors should try to resubmit the revised manuscript at the earliest convenience. In the preparation of the rebuttal letter, the authors must respect the reviewers' effort for their manuscript. It is important for the authors to make the reviewers feel that the authors take a best effort to verify the reviewer's request.
    Keywords:  How to write; Review process; Reviewer; Revised manuscript; Revision
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-023-00908-z
  17. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Dec 20. pii: S2211-5684(22)00240-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Serving as a reviewer.
    Philippe Soyer.
      
    Keywords:  Impact factor; Peer review; Scholarly journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.11.008
  18. mSphere. 2023 Jan 10. e0059822
    Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility (the 3 R's) in the Scientific Publishing Landscape: ASM'S Pre-Publication Proactive Approaches.
    Amy L Kullas.
      
    Keywords:  integrity; publishing ethics; rigor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00598-22
  19. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2023 Jan 07. 99228221148426
    Cooperation and Scientific Contribution: The Search for a Common Nexus.
    Javier Arredondo Montero, Mónica Bronte Anaut, Nerea Martín-Calvo, Carlos Bardají Pascual.
      International cooperation in pediatrics and pediatric surgery entails important barriers such as sociocultural differences, language difficulties, lack of infrastructure and resources, and short duration of campaigns. In this work, we share our personal experience in relation to the scientific publication of works carried out in pediatric international cooperation, and we make a critical reflection on the aspects to be considered for this field to develop in the future.
    Keywords:  Africa; high-impact journals; humanization; international cooperation; pediatric surgery; pediatrics; peer review; publication; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00099228221148426
  20. Diabetologia. 2023 Jan 14.
    Missing the forest-plot for the trees.
    Deirdre K Tobias.
      Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are methods increasingly used in biomedical research since their introduction in the 1970s. They serve to replace other non-systematic and cherry-picked narrative reviews, which are highly variable in their approach, structure and content. Their increase in popularity parallels the increase in overall scientific output, and when properly conducted, systematic reviews can contribute highly impactful summaries of a fast-growing evidence base. Meta-analyses offer statistical summaries, called forest plots, which similarly provide a powerful synopsis unachievable by individual studies. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine why systematic reviews are published more often. Should scientists be concerned by the accelerated output of research, from systematic reviews or other? If quantity comes at the expense of quality, then yes, of course; but should important manuscripts be rationed out otherwise? A new scientific technique can seem scary at first, especially to the researcher who is unfamiliar with its application or uncertain of its validity. In that case, we should become familiar with new and popular methods, and understand their strengths and limitations. There is a rightful place for systematic reviews and meta-analyses among respectable research tools. Importantly, however, despite standard operating procedures and best practices, the quality of systematic reviews today is highly variable, warranting serious concerns for quantity exceeding quality. Therefore, the appropriate response should be to instil researchers with an appreciation for the complexity of conducting and interpreting a systematic review and meta-analysis, to create more knowledgeable authors, reviewers and editors, who collectively will improve, rather than dismiss, these important scientific contributions.
    Keywords:  Meta-analysis; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05862-8
  21. Am J Epidemiol. 2023 Jan 10. pii: kwad007. [Epub ahead of print]
    Toward open and reproducible epidemiology.
    Maya B Mathur, Matthew P Fox.
      Starting in the 2010s, researchers in the experimental social sciences rapidly began to adopt increasingly open and reproducible scientific practices. These practices include publicly sharing deidentified data when possible, sharing analysis code, and preregistering study protocols. Empirical evidence from the social sciences suggests such practices are feasible, can improve analytic reproducibility, and can reduce selective reporting. In academic epidemiology, adoption of open-science practices has been slower than in the social sciences (with some notable exceptions, such as registering clinical trials). Epidemiologic studies are often large, complex, conceived after data have already been collected, and difficult to directly replicate by collecting new data. These characteristics makes it especially important to ensure their integrity and analytic reproducibility. Open-science practices can also pay immediate dividends to researchers' own work by clarifying scientific reasoning and encouraging well-documented, organized workflows. We consider how established epidemiologists and early-career researchers alike can help midwife a culture of open science in epidemiology through their research practices, mentorship, and editorial activities.
    Keywords:  meta-science; publication bias; replication; robustness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwad007
  22. J Control Release. 2023 Jan 10. pii: S0168-3659(23)00009-3. [Epub ahead of print]353 1171
    Lessons learned from a decade as an editor of scientific journals.
    Christine Allen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.01.006
  23. J Exp Biol. 2023 Jan 15. pii: jeb245153. [Epub ahead of print]226(2):
    Turning a page: remaining a top competitor in an evolving publication ecosystem.
    George N Somero.
      Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB) is celebrating its first 100 years this year. My own relationship with the journal spans over six decades and encompasses a variety of roles: reader, author, Editor (1995-2000), Editorial Advisory Board member (2000 to present) and Director on the board of its publisher, The Company of Biologists (2003-2009). I was therefore delighted when the journal Editors asked me to write a Perspective to reflect on how the journal and the publishing environment in which it competes have evolved over this long period, and to peek into my crystal ball and comment on what the future might hold for the journal and the primary fields it covers: comparative-environmental-evolutionary physiology, neuroethology and biomechanics.
    Keywords:  Adaptation; JEB history; Literature evolution
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.245153
  24. Headache. 2023 Jan 12.
    Headache at a Janus moment: Reflecting back on the past 20 years of scholarly publishing and looking ahead to inevitable change.
    Jason Roberts.
      
    Keywords:   Headache ; engagement; peer review; publication models; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14461
  25. J Helminthol. 2023 Jan 09. 97 e2
    A century of the Journal of Helminthology.
    N J Morley, J W Lewis.
      The Journal of Helminthology (JHL) was first published in 1923 and was originally created as a house journal of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The JHL was devised by its first Editor, Robert Leiper, to allow for rapid publication of results from the Department of Helminthology and its offshoot the Institute of Agricultural Parasitology. From this initial narrow focus the JHL has subsequently become not only internationally recognized but also retained its original emphasis on morphological, taxonomic and life cycle studies while embracing the emergence of new fields and technological advancements. The present review covers the historical development of the JHL over the last century from 1923 to 2023.
    Keywords:  Helminthology; Robert Leiper; history; publishing; scientific journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X22000293
  26. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2022 Dec;28(4): 265-268
    Stepping stones for the future-2022 major developments, journal metrics, and appreciation for reviewers.
    Sue Kim.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2022.12.14.1
  27. Am J Occup Ther. 2022 Nov 01. pii: 7606070010. [Epub ahead of print]76(6):
    State of the Journal, 2022.
    Stacey Reynolds.
      The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) had another successful year reaching our highest 2-yr impact factor in history (2.813) and regaining our position as the highest ranking occupational therapy journal in the world. Our expanded social media platforms and online resources continue to expand access and help occupational therapy practitioners translate research into practice. The journal's goals moving forward include enhancing opportunities for student involvement, enhancing standards for rigor and reporting, and updating official AJOT documents and resources to reflect best practices for bias-free language and the use of race/ethnicity data in research publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.076601
  28. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2023 Mar;22(1): ar8
    Analysis of Inclusivity of Published Science Communication Curricula for Scientists and STEM Students.
    Randy Vickery, Katlyn Murphy, Rachel McMillan, Sydney Alderfer, Jasmine Donkoh, Nicole Kelp.
      There has been an increased push for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students and scientists to be trained in science communication. Science communication researchers have outlined various models of how scientists interact with nonscientists-including deficit, dialogue, and inclusive approaches. We wanted to analyze whether published science communication curricula for STEM students and scientists exhibit features of inclusive science communication. We analyzed n = 81 published science communication trainings. We found an increase in such publications over the past two decades. We coded the trainings according to the science communication model they most closely follow, finding 40.7% deficit, 39.5% dialogue, and 19.8% inclusive. Trainings for STEM undergraduates were the least likely to provide training in the inclusive model. Finally, only 27.2% of publications included evaluation of the efficacy of the curriculum using an external scale or framework. These findings present opportunities: while it is positive that there are more published science communication curricula, science education and communication researchers should develop and publish more-inclusive science communication trainings for STEM students. Additionally, undergraduate students can and should begin their training in science communication with a focus on inclusivity not deficits. Finally, science education researchers should develop more standards for evaluating the efficacy of inclusive science communication training.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-03-0040
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.