bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–03–19
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. JMIR Form Res. 2023 Mar 16. 7 e44633
       BACKGROUND: Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication.
    OBJECTIVE: In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs.
    METHODS: We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility.
    RESULTS: Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (β=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges.
    CONCLUSIONS: OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; article processing charge; oncology; open access; open access publishing; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/44633
  2. Nature. 2023 Mar 15.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Psychology; Publishing; Software
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00788-6
  3. Heliyon. 2023 Mar;9(3): e14233
       Background: The Covid-19 pandemic impacted scientific publishing, though it's effect on publication times in urology literature is unknown. The objective of our study were to determine and compare acceptance and publication times in general and specific urology journals, and to quantify these times before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.
    Methods: We identified all original articles published in seven urology journals in 2019 and 2021, and extracted data on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication times. Differences between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.
    Results: A total of 2880 articles were included, comprising 1601 articles published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Less experimental/animal studies were published in 2021 compared to 2019 (197 vs. 289). Time between submission and online publication was longer in 2021 (median 4.4 vs 3.3 months, p < 0.001), though acceptance times were not different (median 3.3 vs 3.3 months, p = 0.25). Prostate (median: 2.8 months, Neurourology and Urodynamics (median: 2.8 months) and Word Journal of Urology (median 2.9 months) had the shortest acceptance time in 2021. Time between submission and in-print publication ranged from 4.6 months (IQR: 3.6-6.8) for Prostate to 11.9 months (IQR: 9.8-13.2) for World Journal of Urology. Acceptance times were significantly longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate. Moreover, time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics. The median time to in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021).
    Conclusions: We identified journal specific acceptance and publication times and observed substantial differences between urology journals for the years 2019 and 2021.
    Keywords:  Acceptance time; Bibliometric; Covid-19; Publication times; Submission; Urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14233
  4. Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Mar 13.
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist.
    METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
    RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
    CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
    Keywords:  Endodontics; Network meta-analyses; Reporting quality; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04948-w
  5. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023 03;pii: S1532-3382(22)00159-2. [Epub ahead of print]23(1): 101831
       OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.
    METHODS: We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.
    RESULTS: A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.
    CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.
    Keywords:  Data reporting; Dentistry; Medical writing; PRISMA; Research methodology; Systematic reviews as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101831
  6. J Cancer Policy. 2023 Mar 13. pii: S2213-5383(23)00036-X. [Epub ahead of print] 100419
      Open access journals (OAJ) in biomedicine are promoted to improve the reach and distribution of global health research (GHR).However, in the last 20 years, article publishing charge (APC) is attracting and publishing the vast majority of papers from high-income countries (HIC) in 'oncology' journals under OAJ. This paper outlines the impediments for cancer research and publication from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC): (a) existing disparities in cancer care facilities and survival outcomes between HIC and LMIC, (b) more than 70% of OAJ in 'oncology' subject levy APC, becoming unaffordable for scientists and clinicians from LMIC, (c) impactful OAJ in oncology engage less than 10% of members from LMIC in editorial board or as peer reviewer, whereas two-third of cancer diagnosis and management occur in these countries. Peer review serves the editors by recommending the relevant papers. Thus, peer reviewers from developing countries working for the OAJs in 'oncology' can increase the diversity in publication, improving the GHR in cancer management. The cancer research and clinical trials which can bring to notice the challenges and hurdles faced by researchers, clinicians and cancer patients in LMIC will be served to some measure by engaging peer reviewers from those countries who understand the ecosystem.
    Keywords:  Cancer research; Clinical trial; article processing charge; low- and middle-income countries; oncology subject; open access journal; peer reviewers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100419
  7. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 Mar 09. pii: S1473-3099(23)00145-7. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00145-7
  8. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Mar 13.
      Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
  9. Am J Med. 2023 Mar 09. pii: S0002-9343(23)00159-6. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.02.011
  10. Nurse Educ Pract. 2023 Mar 07. pii: S1471-5953(23)00062-8. [Epub ahead of print]68 103600
      This letter to the editors takes a deeper look at the validity and ethics of authorship of a recently published article in Nurse Education in Practice in which authorship was shared with a chatbox software program, ChatGPT (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537). In particular, a closer assessment is made of the authorship of that article from the established principles of authorship as delineated by the ICMJE.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); Authorship principles; COPE; Ethics; ICMJE; Responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103600
  11. Ann Plast Surg. 2023 Mar 06.
       PURPOSE: Journals are increasingly using social media to increase article engagement. We aim to determine the impact of Instagram promotion on, and identify social media tools that effectively enhance, plastic surgery article engagement and impact.
    METHODS: Instagram accounts for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were reviewed for posts published by February 8, 2022. Open access journal articles were excluded. Post caption word count and number of likes, tagged accounts, and hashtags were recorded. Inclusion of videos, article links, or author introductions was noted. All articles from journal issues published between the dates of the first and last posts promoting articles were reviewed. Altmetric data approximated article engagement. Citation numbers from the National Institutes of Health iCite tool approximated impact. Differences in engagement and impact of articles with and without Instagram promotion were compared by Mann-Whitney U tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors predictive of more engagement (Altmetric Attention Score, ≥5) and citations (≥7).
    RESULTS: A total of 5037 articles were included, with 675 (13.4%) promoted on Instagram. Of posts featuring articles, 274 (40.6%) included videos, 469 (69.5%) included article links, and 123 included (18.2%) author introductions. Promoted articles had higher median Altmetric Attention Scores and citations (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, using more hashtags predicted higher article Altmetric Attention Scores (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; P = 0.002) and more citations (OR, 1.90; P < 0.001). Including article links (OR, 3.52; P < 0.001) and tagging more accounts (OR, 1.64; P = 0.022) predicted higher Altmetric Attention Scores. Including author introductions negatively predicted Altmetric Attention Scores (OR, 0.46; P < 0.001) and citations (OR, 0.65; P = 0.047). Caption word count had no significant impact on article engagement or impact.
    CONCLUSIONS: Instagram promotion increases plastic surgery article engagement and impact. Journals should use more hashtags, tag more accounts, and include manuscript links to increase article metrics. We recommend that authors promote on journal social media to maximize article reach, engagement, and citations, which positively impacts research productivity with minimal additional effort in designing Instagram content.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000003493
  12. BJGP Open. 2023 Mar 14. pii: BJGPO.2023.0038. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  editors; ethics; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0038
  13. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023 Mar 17. 15562646231164112
      The issue of publishing ethics has been drawing attention from scholars of various fields, and this study focuses on the situation in translation and interpreting (T&I) studies. It surveys Chinese T&I researchers' publication pressure and its impact on their research quality and publishing ethics via an online questionnaire and follow-up telephone interviews. Altogether, 124 respondents filled out the questionnaire, and 14 of them took part in the interviews. Data analyses reveal that the pressure caused by the limited number of T&I journals is the highest, there is significant correlation between this type of pressure and publishing ethics, and there is also significant association between publication pressure and research quality. The follow-up interviews confirmed the findings, and the discussions with interviewees suggest that using alternative evaluation methods such as the representative work method might be a way out of the current publishing dilemma.
    Keywords:  ethics; interpreting; pressure; publishing; translation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231164112
  14. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Feb 11. pii: S0022-5223(23)00156-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.02.001