bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒04‒02
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. CRediT taxonomy: a system for identifying the contribution of each author in a scientific article.
  2. The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.
  3. Publishing industry-sponsored studies.
  4. Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature.
  5. Fast-growing open-access journals lose impact factors.
  6. Authorship and the importance of the author contribution statement.
  7. Anchoring effects in the assessment of papers: An empirical survey of citing authors.
  8. Nurses' Motivations, Barriers, and Facilitators to Engage in a Peer Review Process: A Qualitative Study Protocol.
  9. L’intelligenza artificiale scrive articoli scientifici?
  10. Rôle de l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle ChatGPT dans la rédaction des articles scientifiques médicaux The Role of Using ChatGPT AI in Writing Medical Scientific Articles.
  11. ChatGPT and Publication Ethics.
  12. Why ChatGPT Should Not Be Used to Write Academic Scientific Manuscripts for Publication.
  13. Erratum: Authorship Policy of the Korean Journal of Radiology Regarding Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models Such as ChatGPT.
  14. [The author, key to the editorial process].
  15. Ethical data sharing in forensic research.
  16. Conducting and presenting research: A reviewer's perspective.
  17. Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.
  18. Research, Reading, and Publication Habits of Nurses and Nursing Students Applied to Impact Journals: International Multicentre Study.
  19. Writing for publication in peer reviewed Nursing journals - the need to consider the Global Audience.
  20. Letter writing assignment for exercise physiology students.
  21. Promoting diversity and overcoming publication barriers in Latin American neuroscience and Alzheimer's disease research: A call to action.
  22. What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives.
  23. Equity in scientific publishing: 2022 results from Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
  24. Rehabilitation journal editors recognize the need for interventions targeted to improve the completeness of reporting, but there is heterogeneity in terms of strategies actually adopted: A cross-sectional web-based survey.
  25. Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve.
  26. Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility.
  27. Post-Pandemic Pathology Practice.
  28. COVID-origins report sparks debate over major genome hub GISAID.
  1. Med Clin (Barc). 2023 Mar 27. pii: S0025-7753(23)00090-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    CRediT taxonomy: a system for identifying the contribution of each author in a scientific article.
    Marta Pulido.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2023.02.008
  2. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Mar 27. 38(12): e88
    The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.
    Flinta Rodrigues, Prakash Gupta, Afzal Parvez Khan, Tulika Chatterjee, Nimrat Kaur Sandhu, Latika Gupta.
      Plagiarism is one of the most frequent forms of research misconduct in South and East Asian countries. This narrative review examines the factors contributing to research misconduct, emphasizing plagiarism, particularly in South, East and Southeast Asian countries. We conducted a PubMed and Scopus search using the terms plagiarism, Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, research misconduct and retractions in January of 2022. Articles with missing abstracts, incomplete information about plagiarism, publication dates before 2010, and those unrelated to South, East, and Southeast Asian countries were excluded. The retraction watch database was searched for articles retracted between 9th January 2020 to 9th January 2022. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 21 were included in the study using the database search criteria mentioned above. The review of articles identified a lack of training in scientific writing and research ethics, publication pressure, permissive attitudes, and inadequate regulatory measures as the primary reasons behind research misconduct in scientific publications. Plagiarism remains a common cause of unethical publications and retractions in regions of Asia (namely South, East and Southeast). Researchers lack training in scientific writing, and substantial gaps exist in understanding various forms of plagiarism, which heavily contribute to the problem. There is an urgent need to foster high research ethics standards and adhere to journal policies. Providing appropriate training in scientific writing among researchers may help improve the knowledge of different types of plagiarism and promote the use of antiplagiarism software, leading to a substantial reduction in the problem.
    Keywords:  East Asia; Plagiarism; Publication Ethics; Research Misconduct; Retraction; South Asia; Southeast Asia
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e88
  3. J Sex Med. 2023 Mar 31. 20(4): 422-425
    Publishing industry-sponsored studies.
    Andrea Salonia, Paolo Capogrosso.
      
    Keywords:  industry; research; sexual medicine; sponsor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdad003
  4. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Mar 30.
    Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature.
    Connor McGuire, Colton Boudreau, Emily Burbidge, Osama A Samargandi, Jason Williams.
      BACKGROUND: The methodological quality of open access studies has long been questioned due to increasing popularity and accessibility. The objective of this study is to compare the methodological quality of open access versus traditional journal publications in the plastic surgery literature.METHODS: Four traditional plastic surgery journals with their sister open access journals were chosen. For each of the eight journals, 10 articles were randomly selected for inclusion. Methodological quality was examined using validated instruments. Publication descriptors were compared to methodological quality values using ANOVA. Logistic regression was used to compare quality scores between open access and traditional journals.
    RESULTS: There was a wide distribution of levels of evidence, with a quarter being level one. Regression of non-randomized studies indicated a significantly higher proportion of traditional journal articles were of high methodological quality (89.6%) when compared to open access journals (55.6%; p < 0.05). This difference persisted in three quarter of the sister journal groups. No publication descriptions were associated with methodological quality.
    CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality scores were higher among traditional access journals. Higher degrees of peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in open access plastic surgery publications.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03319-w
  5. Science. 2023 Mar 31. 379(6639): 1283-1284
    Fast-growing open-access journals lose impact factors.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Web of Science delists some 50 journals, including one of the world's largest.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0092
  6. Plant Cell Rep. 2023 Mar 31.
    Authorship and the importance of the author contribution statement.
    C Neal Stewart, Gűnther Hahne.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03007-8
  7. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(3): e0283893
    Anchoring effects in the assessment of papers: An empirical survey of citing authors.
    Lutz Bornmann, Christian Ganser, Alexander Tekles.
      In our study, we have empirically studied the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether the assessment of a paper can be influenced by numerical information that act as an anchor (e.g. citation impact). We have undertaken a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors were asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors were assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation impact information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor) or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group did not receive any further numerical information. We are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation impact or journal impact), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. Our results show that the quality assessments of papers seem to depend on the citation impact information of single papers. The other information (anchors) such as an arbitrary number (an access code) and journal impact information did not play a (important) role in the assessments of papers. The results point to a possible anchoring bias caused by insufficient adjustment: it seems that the respondents assessed cited papers in another way when they observed paper impact values in the survey. We conclude that initiatives aiming at reducing the use of journal impact information in research evaluation either were already successful or overestimated the influence of this information.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283893
  8. Nurs Rep. 2023 Feb 22. 13(1): 307-314
    Nurses' Motivations, Barriers, and Facilitators to Engage in a Peer Review Process: A Qualitative Study Protocol.
    Júlio Belo Fernandes, Josefa Domingos, John Dean, Sónia Fernandes, Rogério Ferreira, Cristina Lavareda Baixinho, Cidália Castro, Aida Simões, Catarina Bernardes, Ana Silva Almeida, Sónia Loureiro, Noélia Ferreira, Isabel Santos, Catarina Godinho.
      Peer review supports the integrity and quality of scientific publishing. However, although it is a fundamental part of the publishing process, peer review can also be challenging for reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders. The present study aims to explore the nurses' motivations, barriers, and facilitators in engaging in a peer review process. This qualitative, descriptive exploratory study will be developed in partnerships with three research centers. Researchers followed the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist to ensure the quality of this study protocol. According to the selection criteria, the purposive sampling will be used to recruit nurse researchers that act as peer reviewers for several scientific journals in various fields of knowledge. Interviews will be conducted until data have been sufficiently consistent with meeting the initial objectives. Researchers will develop a guide comprising a set of open-ended questions to collect participants' characteristics, descriptive review behavior, and perceptions regarding their motivations, barriers, and facilitators. Researchers will analyze data using an inductive process of content analysis with the help of the QDA Miner Lite database. Findings from this study will generate knowledge that may help stakeholders identify facilitating factors and barriers and guide the development of strategies to remove or minimize these barriers.
    Keywords:  challenges; difficulties; facilitators; motivation; nurses; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13010029
  9. Recenti Prog Med. 2023 Apr;118(4): 235-236
    L’intelligenza artificiale scrive articoli scientifici?
    Rebecca De Fiore.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4009.39893
  10. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Mar 24. pii: S2468-7855(23)00078-2. [Epub ahead of print] 101456
    Rôle de l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle ChatGPT dans la rédaction des articles scientifiques médicaux The Role of Using ChatGPT AI in Writing Medical Scientific Articles.
    ChatGPT
      The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical research is on the rise. This article explores the role of using ChatGPT, a language model developed by OpenAI, in writing medical scientific articles. The material and methods used included a comparative analysis of medical scientific articles produced with and without the use of ChatGPT. The results suggest that the use of ChatGPT can be a useful tool for scientists to increase the production of higher quality medical scientific articles, but it is important to note that AI cannot fully replace human authors. In conclusion, scientists should consider ChatGPT as an additional tool to produce higher quality medical scientific articles more quickly.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Intelligence artificielle; articles scientifiques médicaux; medical research; medical scientific articles; recherche médicale
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101456
  11. Arch Med Res. 2023 Mar 27. pii: S0188-4409(23)00038-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    ChatGPT and Publication Ethics.
    Farid Rahimi, Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi.
      Academic publishing is crucial for scientific communication, is governed by accepted ethical norms, and underpins the collective literature on basic science, and technological and medical principles and advances. In November 2022, the public and professional global communities, including the scientific community, witnessed the release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, USA. Excluding its public appeal and entertaining aspects but considering its diverse potential applications, some ethical concerns must be considered before establishing guidelines on using and including ChatGPT or similar platforms in scientific publishing. Some academic publishers and preprints have accepted manuscripts with ChatGPT listed as a "co-author". Though excluding such platforms from scientific publishing may not be practicable with time, establishing ethical principles is essential before ChatGPT could become a "co-author" in any scientific, published manuscript.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2023.03.004
  12. Ann Fam Med. 2023 Mar 31. pii: 2958. [Epub ahead of print]
    Why ChatGPT Should Not Be Used to Write Academic Scientific Manuscripts for Publication.
      Annals Online First article.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2982
  13. Korean J Radiol. 2023 Apr;24(4): 374
    Erratum: Authorship Policy of the Korean Journal of Radiology Regarding Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models Such as ChatGPT.
    Seong Ho Park.
      This corrects the article on p. 171 in vol. 24, PMID: 36788775.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.0244
  14. Acta Ortop Mex. 2022 Jul-Aug;36(4):36(4): 201
    [The author, key to the editorial process].
    M F González-Velasco.
      No Abstract available.
  15. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023 ;6 100322
    Ethical data sharing in forensic research.
    Carolyn I Allen, Samuel H Payne, Julie L Valentine.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100322
  16. Sci Total Environ. 2023 Mar 27. pii: S0048-9697(23)01771-0. [Epub ahead of print] 163152
    Conducting and presenting research: A reviewer's perspective.
    Kiril D Hristovski.
      
    Keywords:  Manuscript; Research; Review; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163152
  17. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(3): e0282168
    Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.
    Jeremy Y Ng, Kelly D Cobey, Saad Ahmed, Valerie Chow, Sharleen G Maduranayagam, Lucas J Santoro, Lindsey Sikora, Ana Marusic, Daniel Shanahan, Randy Townsend, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, David Moher.
      BACKGROUND: Scholarly journals play a key role in the dissemination of research findings. However, little focus is given to the process of establishing new, credible journals and the obstacles faced in achieving this. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing recommendations for starting a biomedical scholarly journal.METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases: OVID Medline + Medline in Process, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 14, 2022. A related grey literature search was conducted on March 19, 2022. Eligible sources were those published in English in any year, of any format, and that described guidance for starting a biomedical journal. Titles and abstracts of obtained sources were screened. We extracted descriptive characteristics including author name, year and country of publication, journal name, and source type, and any recommendations from the included sources discussing guidance for starting a biomedical journal. These recommendations were categorized and thematically grouped.
    RESULTS: A total of 5626 unique sources were obtained. Thirty-three sources met our inclusion criteria. Most sources were blog posts (10/33; 30.30%), and only 10 sources were supported by evidence. We extracted 51 unique recommendations from these 33 sources, which we thematically classified into nine themes which were: journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting/typesetting, production, archiving/indexing/metrics, marketing/promotion, and funding.
    CONCLUSIONS: There is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal. The development of an evidence-based guideline may help uphold scholarly publishing quality, provide insight into obstacles new journals will face, and equip novice publishers with the tools to meet best practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282168
  18. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 07. pii: 4697. [Epub ahead of print]20(6):
    Research, Reading, and Publication Habits of Nurses and Nursing Students Applied to Impact Journals: International Multicentre Study.
    María Begoña Sánchez-Gómez, Gonzalo Duarte-Clíments, Juan Gómez-Salgado, María Elena González-Pacheco, María Elisa de Castro-Peraza, María Mercedes Novo-Muñoz, José Ángel Rodríguez-Gómez, José Ramón Martínez-Riera, Rafaella Pessoa-Moreira, Maria do Rosario Martins, Paloma Echevarría-Pérez, Ana Isabel Bonilla-Calero.
      Publishing in JCR and SJR journals has become crucial for curricular development. Results from nursing investigations "compete" for publication in journals which are not specific to the field of care, affecting the academic development of these investigators. This phenomenon may lead to an ongoing adverse effect on nursing researchers and academics engaged in research in nursing care. The aim of this study was to evaluate habits regarding scientific literature consulting, the transfer of published material, and the citation of nursing investigations. A cross-sectional descriptive study by means of questionnaires was carried out, focusing on both Spanish and Portuguese nurses. The findings of the study reveal the following reasons for reading the scientific literature: that the language was understood; for learning and applying what was learnt; that the journal was of open access; for elaborating protocols and work procedures; and that the journal was indexed in scientific databases and in nursing databases. The reasons for reading, using, and publishing in journals were related to knowledge of the language and the associated usefulness of learning and applying knowledge. Creating a specific index of research publications in nursing will have a positive effect on the scientific production of caring methodologies.
    Keywords:  competence; health sciences; impact factor; journals; nursing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064697
  19. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2023 ;pii: S0104-11692023000100200. [Epub ahead of print]31 e3906
    Writing for publication in peer reviewed Nursing journals - the need to consider the Global Audience.
    Fiona Timmins.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0000.3906
  20. Adv Physiol Educ. 2023 Mar 30.
    Letter writing assignment for exercise physiology students.
    James L Nuzzo.
      Letters to the editor are an important part of democratic societies. In academic journals, letters serve as a form of post-publication review and thus permit the continued discussion and debate of scientific ideas. However, letters and their importance are rarely taught to university students. Therefore, the aim of the current paper is to propose a lecture and assignment that introduces the exercise physiology student to letters. The lecture includes an overview of the history of letters, the definition and purposes of letters, letter themes, examples of letters published in exercise physiology journals, and a search method for discovering letters. The student is then assigned a project comprised of two parts. Part 1 requires the student to independently discover a letter exchange in a scientific journal, including the original research article, the letter commenting on the article, and the reply to the letter. The student then writes a report that summarizes the exchange. The report includes an analysis of the letter's themes and the validity of the arguments being made. Part 2 of the assignment requires the student to independently discover an article published in the past year that they believe requires comment. The student then writes a letter, commenting on the article. Students who write convincing letters can be encouraged to submit their letter to the journal. The assignment should help prepare the next generation of journal editors, reviewers, and readers for being up to the task of preserving and participating in a practice that serves to refine knowledge.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; education; exercise physiology; letters; letters to the editor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00258.2022
  21. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2023 Jan-Mar;9(1):9(1): e12378
    Promoting diversity and overcoming publication barriers in Latin American neuroscience and Alzheimer's disease research: A call to action.
    Mychael V Lourenco, Wyllians Vendramini Borelli, Claudia Duran-Aniotz, Eduardo R Zimmer, Shamyr Sulyvan de Castro.
      Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global health issue. Because AD is a condition demanding effective management, its socioeconomic burden is immense and threatens the health systems of both low- and middle-income (LMIC) and high-income (HIC) countries. However, while most of the HICs are increasing their budget for AD research, the situation is different in LMICs, and resources are scarce. In addition, LMIC researchers face significant barriers to publishing in international peer reviewed journals, including funding constraints; language barriers; and in many cases, high article processing charges. In this perspective, we discuss these disparities and propose some actions that could help promote diversity, and ultimately translate into improved AD research capacity in LMICs, especially in Latin American and Caribbean countries.HIGHLIGHTS: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face increasing difficulties such as financial constraints, language barriers, and article processing charges.Publication fees, in particular, can be a significant barrier in the process of publication and equal access to scientific information.Publication fee equalization initiatives by publishing companies could reduce the scientific inequality that disadvantages researchers in LMICs.
    Keywords:  Alzheimer's disease; article processing charges; funding disparities; publishing barriers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12378
  22. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Mar;pii: e010157. [Epub ahead of print]8(3):
    What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives.
    Natalia Evertsz, Susan Bull, Bridget Pratt.
      INTRODUCTION: Despite growing consensus on the need for equitable data sharing, there has been very limited discussion about what this should entail in practice. As a matter of procedural fairness and epistemic justice, the perspectives of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders must inform concepts of equitable health research data sharing. This paper investigates published perspectives in relation to how equitable data sharing in global health research should be understood.METHODS: We undertook a scoping review (2015 onwards) of the literature on LMIC stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of data sharing in global health research and thematically analysed the 26 articles included in the review.
    RESULTS: We report LMIC stakeholders' published views on how current data sharing mandates may exacerbate inequities, what structural changes are required in order to create an environment conducive to equitable data sharing and what should comprise equitable data sharing in global health research.
    CONCLUSIONS: In light of our findings, we conclude that data sharing under existing mandates to share data (with minimal restrictions) risks perpetuating a neocolonial dynamic. To achieve equitable data sharing, adopting best practices in data sharing is necessary but insufficient. Structural inequalities in global health research must also be addressed. It is thus imperative that the structural changes needed to ensure equitable data sharing are incorporated into the broader dialogue on global health research.
    Keywords:  Health policies and all other topics; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010157
  23. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023 Jan;7(1): 100059
    Equity in scientific publishing: 2022 results from Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
    Elizabeth C Pendlebury, Mary Cushman.
      
    Keywords:  authorship; diversity; equity; peer review; publication; women
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100059
  24. J Evid Based Med. 2023 Mar 29.
    Rehabilitation journal editors recognize the need for interventions targeted to improve the completeness of reporting, but there is heterogeneity in terms of strategies actually adopted: A cross-sectional web-based survey.
    Tiziano Innocenti, Raymond Ostelo, Arianne Verhagen, Rafael Zambelli Pinto, Stefano Salvioli, Silvia Giagio, Alessandro Chiarotto.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12527
  25. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(3): e0283753
    Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve.
    Joanna Diong, Elizabeth Bye, Zoë Djajadikarta, Annie A Butler, Simon C Gandevia, Martin E Héroux.
      Journals can substantially influence the quality of research reports by including responsible reporting practices in their Instructions to Authors. We assessed the extent to which 100 journals in neuroscience and physiology required authors to report methods and results in a rigorous and transparent way. For each journal, Instructions to Authors and any referenced reporting guideline or checklist were downloaded from journal websites. Twenty-two questions were developed to assess how journal Instructions to Authors address fundamental aspects of rigor and transparency in five key reporting areas. Journal Instructions to Authors and all referenced external guidelines and checklists were audited against these 22 questions. Of the full sample of 100 Instructions to Authors, 34 did not reference any external reporting guideline or checklist. Reporting whether clinical trial protocols were pre-registered was required by 49 journals and encouraged by 7 others. Making data publicly available was encouraged by 64 journals; making (processing or statistical) code publicly available was encouraged by ∼30 of the journals. Other responsible reporting practices were mentioned by less than 20 of the journals. Journals can improve the quality of research reports by mandating, or at least encouraging, the responsible reporting practices highlighted here.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283753
  26. PeerJ. 2023 ;11 e14993
    Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility.
    Meghan M Shea, Jacob Kuppermann, Megan P Rogers, Dustin Summer Smith, Paul Edwards, Alexandria B Boehm.
      The emerging field of environmental DNA (eDNA) research lacks universal guidelines for ensuring data produced are FAIR-findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable-despite growing awareness of the importance of such practices. In order to better understand these data usability challenges, we systematically reviewed 60 peer reviewed articles conducting a specific subset of eDNA research: metabarcoding studies in marine environments. For each article, we characterized approximately 90 features across several categories: general article attributes and topics, methodological choices, types of metadata included, and availability and storage of sequence data. Analyzing these characteristics, we identified several barriers to data accessibility, including a lack of common context and vocabulary across the articles, missing metadata, supplementary information limitations, and a concentration of both sample collection and analysis in the United States. While some of these barriers require significant effort to address, we also found many instances where small choices made by authors and journals could have an outsized influence on the discoverability and reusability of data. Promisingly, articles also showed consistency and creativity in data storage choices as well as a strong trend toward open access publishing. Our analysis underscores the need to think critically about data accessibility and usability as marine eDNA metabarcoding studies, and eDNA projects more broadly, continue to proliferate.
    Keywords:  Best practices; Data accessibility; Data storage; Data usability; Environmental DNA; FAIR data principles; Marine; Metabarcoding; Metadata; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14993
  27. Toxicol Pathol. 2023 Mar 29. 1926233231160518
    Post-Pandemic Pathology Practice.
    Kenneth A Schafer.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; mentoring; preclinical research & development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01926233231160518
  28. Nature. 2023 Mar 29.
    COVID-origins report sparks debate over major genome hub GISAID.
    Smriti Mallapaty.
      
    Keywords:  Diseases; Genomics; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00901-9
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒04‒02 at 15:35:32.