bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–04–09
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The Scare 2023 guideline: Updating consensus surgical case report (SCARE) guidelines.
  2. Harness editors' networks of communication to fight publication fraud.
  3. 'Tortured phrases' in preprints.
  4. Predator and Alien: the threat of predatory journals and conferences.
  5. A perspective on new dilemmas in scientific publishing in the time of a pandemic.
  6. How pandemic publishing struck a blow to the visibility of women's expertise.
  7. A Ghostwriter for the Masses: ChatGPT and the Future of Writing.
  8. The rise of artificial intelligence: addressing the impact of large language models such as ChatGPT on scientific publications.
  9. Use of AI in medical publishing.
  10. Turning your paper into a digital influencer.
  11. Tips and Advice on Preparing a Research Manuscript for Submission and Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Stroke Journal.
  12. Readership awareness series - Paper 4: Chatbots and ChatGPT - Ethical considerations in scientific publications.
  13. Transferring rejected manuscripts to other journals: A good practice?
  14. Journals like Acta Paediatrica should encourage authors to provide uncertainty estimates in manuscripts.
  15. Standards, dissemination, and best practices in systems biology.
  16. Open science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: A statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.
  17. No climate change justice in lieu of global authorship equity - Authors' reply.
  1. Int J Surg. 2023 Apr 05.
    The Scare 2023 guideline: Updating consensus surgical case report (SCARE) guidelines.
    Collaborators
       BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. This paper presents an update to these guidelines.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by email. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items.
    RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 45 (83.3%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion within the updated guidelines.
    CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centered care.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000373
  2. Account Res. 2023 Apr 04.
    Harness editors' networks of communication to fight publication fraud.
    Guangwei Hu.
      Publication fraud has been on the rise and is posing a serious threat to the integrity and validity of the scientific literature. There is, however, a lack of concerted effort to address the problem. In this letter, I suggest that journal editors' professional networks of communication can be put to good use in a coordinated fight against publication fraud.
    Keywords:  Papermill; paid authorship; publication fraud
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2199931
  3. Curr Med Res Opin. 2023 Apr 07. 1-8
    'Tortured phrases' in preprints.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      This commentary takes note of the existence of 'tortured phrases' (i.e., unspecific jargon or confusing alternative phrases), as indexed in the Tortured Phrases Detector of the Problematic Paper Screener (PPS) (sourced on January 10, 2023) in 213 preprints, 13 of which are related to COVID-19. Select 'tortured phrases' in 11 preprints are highlighted, to offer readers an appreciation of this phenomenon. The incorrect representation of jargon in the medical and health literature may risk confusing readers by reducing the impact of effective and precise communication. Whereas some 'tortured phrases' might represent simple mistranslations, in other cases, an abundance of such terms in a single preprint might reveal a more serious ethical issue, such as the undeclared use of a paper mill or an unprofessional editing service. This commentary is thus only a spring-board to introduce this linguistic phenomenon and to encourage interested academics to explore more cases, the practical implications of their existence, and even the weaknesses and strengths of PPS. Caution is needed about excessive extrapolation of the existence of 'tortured phrases', so as not to automatically associate them with ethical infractions or misconduct.
    Keywords:  editorial oversight; effective communication; plagiarism aversion; preliminary findings
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2201098
  4. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2023 Apr 05. pii: llad133. [Epub ahead of print]
    Predator and Alien: the threat of predatory journals and conferences.
    Sophie Leducq, Natalie Bonsu, Kate Clement, Richard Barlow, Hywel C Williams.
      Predatory journals, first recognized in the early 2000s, are fraudulent journals characterized by aggressive marketing solicitations and deviation from best publishing practices. These journals claim to be legitimate scholarly journals, and accept articles for publication with no or poor peer review process or quality checks with a rapid publication process upon payment by the authors. They are a global threat as they are dishonest, lack transparency and seek only financial gain. More recently, predatory conferences have emerged and are expanding rapidly. Although they appear to be legitimate scientific conferences, they are also characterised by an over-riding profit motive, with no concern on academic values. Predatory journals and conferences are on the rise; dermatology trainees, readers and those new to publishing and conferences are vulnerable to predatory exploitation. The consequences of falling prey to such predation includes damage to the external reputation of the authors and their Institution and raises concerns about the legitimacy of the research. Several tools are available to help researchers recognise a predatory journal or conference. This educational review defines predatory journals and predatory conferences and summarises their distinguishing features such as no or poor peer review process, rapid acceptance, flattering language and lacking of meeting. We also highlight the consequences of publishing in a predatory journal or attending a predatory conference. The review finally outlines several tools available to use to reduce the likelihood of dermatologists falling into the hands of a predator.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llad133
  5. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2023 Apr 03. pii: S0255-0857(23)00067-1. [Epub ahead of print] 100366
    A perspective on new dilemmas in scientific publishing in the time of a pandemic.
    Albina Arjuman.
       BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic exerted manifold pressures on the public health framework globally, but it also in a way unified different genres and allowed for strategizing and implementing regulatory decisions as best as possible, especially in India. There is an unmet need for such a unified and integrative approach in the area of scientific publishing which has also been touched by various dilemmas, either emergent or propagated during this pandemic.
    OBJECTIVES: This article intends to re-visit some of the dilemmas in scientific publishing, which have taken centre stage owing to a healthcare emergency, with the objective of highlighting an unmet need for developing unified criteria for research conduction and publishing from a futuristic view point, as one is not without the other.
    CONTENT: While a fast track delivery of research data has been a priority for research journals, the due pressures in the process management of the same while skimming the ethical boundaries of responsible mediation through a Journal platform has remained a challenge globally for various reasons. Furthermore, the inevitability of a healthcare emergency inadvertently led to some cumulative off-target effects including accumulation of research waste, diminishing validity of academic metrics, short data set publications, hasty zombie clinical trials publishing merely an overview of the actual data, etc, which are major issues not only for journal Editors or the research community as a whole, but also for regulatory authorities and policy makers. As a step towards future pandemic preparedness, strategizing and streamlining research and publication processes ensuing responsible reporting should be treated as a topic of paramount significance. Hence, through debating on these dilemmas as well as potential integrative approaches, unified guiding criteria in the area of scientific publishing may be developed in lieu of preparedness for such future pandemic scenarios.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Dilemma; Ethical; Pandemic; Publication frenzy; Research waste
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmmb.2023.100366
  6. BMJ. 2023 Apr 06. 381 p788
    How pandemic publishing struck a blow to the visibility of women's expertise.
    Jocalyn Clark.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p788
  7. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Apr 08.
    A Ghostwriter for the Masses: ChatGPT and the Future of Writing.
    Asha Zimmerman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13436-0
  8. Singapore Med J. 2023 Apr;64(4): 219-221
    The rise of artificial intelligence: addressing the impact of large language models such as ChatGPT on scientific publications.
    Tiing Leong Ang, Mahesh Choolani, Kay Choong See, Kian Keong Poh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-055
  9. Can Urol Assoc J. 2023 Apr;17(4): 79-80
    Use of AI in medical publishing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8339
  10. Joint Bone Spine. 2023 Apr 05. pii: S1297-319X(23)00052-0. [Epub ahead of print] 105573
    Turning your paper into a digital influencer.
    Licia Maria Henrique da Mota, Maria Luiza Marques Negrisolli, Erivelton de Azevedo Lopes, Cleandro Pires de Albuquerque.
      
    Keywords:  altmetrics; bibliometrics; impact factor; information dissemination; publications for science diffusion; scholarly communication; social media; social networking
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105573
  11. Stroke. 2023 Apr 03.
    Tips and Advice on Preparing a Research Manuscript for Submission and Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Stroke Journal.
    Andrea Lendaris, Charles Esenwa.
      
    Keywords:  goals; neurology; peer review; plagiarism; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.037872
  12. Ocul Surf. 2023 Apr 05. pii: S1542-0124(23)00027-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Readership awareness series - Paper 4: Chatbots and ChatGPT - Ethical considerations in scientific publications.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.001
  13. Account Res. 2023 Apr 04.
    Transferring rejected manuscripts to other journals: A good practice?
    Clovis Mariano Faggion.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; conflict of interest; ethical issues; methods; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2199930
  14. Acta Paediatr. 2023 Apr 06.
    Journals like Acta Paediatrica should encourage authors to provide uncertainty estimates in manuscripts.
    Ilari Kuitunen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16787
  15. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2023 Mar 31. pii: S0958-1669(23)00032-0. [Epub ahead of print]81 102922
    Standards, dissemination, and best practices in systems biology.
    Janis Shin, Veronica Porubsky, James Carothers, Herbert M Sauro.
      The reproducibility of scientific research is crucial to the success of the scientific method. Here, we review the current best practices when publishing mechanistic models in systems biology. We recommend, where possible, to use software engineering strategies such as testing, verification, validation, documentation, versioning, iterative development, and continuous integration. In addition, adhering to the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable modeling principles allows other scientists to collaborate and build off of each other's work. Existing standards such as Systems Biology Markup Language, CellML, or Simulation Experiment Description Markup Language can greatly improve the likelihood that a published model is reproducible, especially if such models are deposited in well-established model repositories. Where models are published in executable programming languages, the source code and their data should be published as open-source in public code repositories together with any documentation and testing code. For complex models, we recommend container-based solutions where any software dependencies and the run-time context can be easily replicated.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2023.102922
  16. Health Psychol. 2023 Apr 03.
    Open science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: A statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.
    Behavioral Medicine Research Council
      Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001236
  17. Lancet. 2023 04 01. pii: S0140-6736(23)00265-9. [Epub ahead of print]401(10382): 1074-1075
    No climate change justice in lieu of global authorship equity - Authors' reply.
    Marina Romanello, Wenjia Cai, Anthony Costello, Stella Hartinger, Kris Murray, Georgiana Gordon Stratchan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00265-9
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.