bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–05–28
34 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Toward sustainability-reducing the environmental impact of your journals.
  2. Scientists' Perception of Pilot Study Quality Was Influenced by Statistical Significance and Study Design.
  3. Assessing the publishing priorities and preferences among STEM researchers at a large R1 institution.
  4. Do scientific meetings matter? Turning up for talks brings surprise benefits.
  5. Beware 'persuasive communication devices' when writing and reading scientific articles.
  6. Biomedical supervisors' role modeling of open science practices.
  7. Is the biggest challenge to scientific thinking science itself?
  8. Article-level metrics: A new approach to quantify reach and impact of published research.
  9. "Not everyone deserves the Green Channel": Self-declaration in the publication is only for the truly mature and honest.
  10. From the Editor's Desk: Objectivity in Manuscript Review-Where Is the Line?
  11. Peer Review Questions & Answers: How?
  12. The Peer Reviewer: An Endangered Species?
  13. Where have all the reviewers gone? Discussing the importance of the peer review community.
  14. Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just.
  15. ChatGPT and conversational artificial intelligence: Friend, foe, or future of research?
  16. Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Scholarly Publication in Orthopaedic Surgery.
  17. GPT-4, artificial intelligence and implications for publishing.
  18. Large language model artificial intelligence: the current state and future of ChatGPT in neuro-oncology publishing.
  19. Using artificial intelligence chatbots like 'ChatGPT' to draft articles for medical journals - Advantages, limitations, ethical concerns and way forward.
  20. [Medical publishing in the chatbots era].
  21. Intelligence or artificial intelligence? More hard problems for authors of Biological Psychology, the neurosciences, and everyone else.
  22. ChatGPT and scientific abstract writing: pitfalls and caution.
  23. Matters arising: authors of research papers must cautiously use ChatGPT for scientific writing.
  24. Exploring the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation for scientific journals.
  25. The Pandora's box of predatory journals.
  26. Social media and academic surgical research dissemination.
  27. Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points.
  28. Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals.
  29. Gender, subjects, developing countries, and other terms in research: the use of appropriate terminology in scientific writing.
  30. Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers.
  31. The art of writing letters to journals….
  32. The craft (and art) of scientific writing.
  33. Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts.
  34. Bacteria without their phages are just not competitive.
  1. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023 06 01. 261(6): 785
    Toward sustainability-reducing the environmental impact of your journals.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.261.6.784
  2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 May 20. pii: S0895-4356(23)00124-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Scientists' Perception of Pilot Study Quality Was Influenced by Statistical Significance and Study Design.
    Lauren von Klinggraeff, Sarah Burkart, Christopher D Pfledderer, Md Nasim Saba Nishat, Bridget Armstrong, R Glenn Weaver, Alexander McLain, Michael W Beets.
       OBJECTIVES: Preliminary studies play a key role in developing large-scale interventions but may be held to higher or lower scientific standards during the peer review process because of their preliminary study status.
    STUDY DESIGN: Abstracts from five published obesity prevention preliminary studies were systematically modified to generate 16 variations of each abstract. Variations differed by four factors: sample size (n=20 vs. n=150), statistical significance (P<.05 vs. P>.05), study design (single group vs. randomized two group), and preliminary study status (presence/absence of pilot language). Using an online survey, behavioral scientists were provided with a randomly selected variation of each of the five abstracts and blinded to the existence of other variations. Respondents rated each abstract on aspects of study quality.
    RESULTS: Behavioral scientists (n=271, 79.7% female, median age 34 years) completed 1,355 abstract ratings. Preliminary study status was not associated with perceived study quality. Statistically significant effects were rated as more scientifically significant, rigorous, innovative, clearly written, warranted further testing, and had more meaningful results. Randomized designs were rated as more rigorous, innovative, and meaningful.
    CONCLUSION: Findings suggest reviewers place a greater value on statistically significant findings and randomized control design and may overlook other important study characteristics.
    Keywords:  Bias; Data Interpretation; Evaluation Studies; Feasibility Studies; Peer Review; Pilot Projects; Research; Statistical
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.011
  3. Heliyon. 2023 May;9(5): e16316
    Assessing the publishing priorities and preferences among STEM researchers at a large R1 institution.
    Ibraheem Ali, Jason Burton, M Wynn Tranfield.
      The cost of academic publishing has increased substantially despite the ease with which information can be shared on the web. Open Access publishing is a key mechanism for amplifying research access, inclusivity, and impact. Despite this, shifting to a free-to-read publishing environment requires navigating complex barriers that vary by career status and publishing expectations. In this article, we investigate the motivations and preferences of researchers situated within our large research institution as a case study for publishing attitudes at similar institutions. We surveyed the publishing priorities and preferences of researchers at various career stages in STEM fields as they relate to openness, data practices, and assessment of research impact. Our results indicate that publishing preferences, data management experience and research impact assessment vary by career status and departmental approaches to promotion. We find that open access publishing is widely appreciated regardless of career status, but financial limitations and publishing expectations were common barriers to publishing in Open Access journals. Our findings shed light on publishing attitudes and preferences among researchers at a major R1 research institution, and offer insight into advocacy strategies that incentivize open access publishing.
    Keywords:  Academic culture; Data management; Open access; Open science; Publishing preferences; Research; Research assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16316
  4. Nature. 2023 May 22.
    Do scientific meetings matter? Turning up for talks brings surprise benefits.
    Katharine Sanderson.
      
    Keywords:  Conferences and meetings; Human behaviour; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01604-x
  5. Elife. 2023 May 25. pii: e88654. [Epub ahead of print]12
    Beware 'persuasive communication devices' when writing and reading scientific articles.
    Olivier Corneille, Jo Havemann, Emma L Henderson, Hans IJzerman, Ian Hussey, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Lee Jussim, Nicholas P Holmes, Artur Pilacinski, Brice Beffara, Harriet Carroll, Nicholas Otieno Outa, Peter Lush, Leon D Lotter.
      Authors rely on a range of devices and techniques to attract and maintain the interest of readers, and to convince them of the merits of the author's point of view. However, when writing a scientific article, authors must use these 'persuasive communication devices' carefully. In particular, they must be explicit about the limitations of their work, avoid obfuscation, and resist the temptation to oversell their results. Here we discuss a list of persuasive communication devices and we encourage authors, as well as reviewers and editors, to think carefully about their use.
    Keywords:  citation; human; language; neuroscience; point of view; reporting; scientific publishing; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88654
  6. Elife. 2023 May 22. pii: e83484. [Epub ahead of print]12
    Biomedical supervisors' role modeling of open science practices.
    Tamarinde L Haven, Susan Abunijela, Nicole Hildebrand.
      Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates' supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19-4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86-11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.
    Keywords:  Open access; Open data; Open science; Research integrity; Supervision; medicine; none; responsible conduct of research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83484
  7. Nature. 2023 May;617(7962): 669-670
    Is the biggest challenge to scientific thinking science itself?
    Eric-Jan Wagenmakers.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Ethics; Research data; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01709-3
  8. J Orthop. 2023 Jun;40 83-86
    Article-level metrics: A new approach to quantify reach and impact of published research.
    Karthikeyan P Iyengar, Raju Vaishya.
      A spectrum of measuring tools are available to evaluate the impact of published literature and the journals they are published in. Journal Level Metrics (JLM) such as Journal Impact Factor (JIF) or CiteScore assess the reputation of peer-reviewed journals based on citation analysis. Whereas, Article Level Metrics (ALM) quantify the importance, reach and impact of a particular article, and are a new approach to quantifying the reach and impact of published research. Traditionally JLM has served as a proxy for an individual publication's significance, however, the introduction of contemporary and evolution of Alternative metrics measuring digital or societal influence of a particular article has gained popularity in recent times. These metrics help in rapid dissemination of research, development of newer research strategies and individual academic progress. We highlight the characteristics and importance of currently available ALM, and the newer ones influenced by social media, digital media and Open Access publishing models.
    Keywords:  Altmetrics; Bibliometrics; CiteScore; H-index; Journal impact factor; Usage metrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2023.05.001
  9. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2023 Jan-Mar;27(1):27(1): 18-19
    "Not everyone deserves the Green Channel": Self-declaration in the publication is only for the truly mature and honest.
    Raghavendhar Karthik.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jomfp.jomfp_77_23
  10. J Gen Intern Med. 2023 May 26.
    From the Editor's Desk: Objectivity in Manuscript Review-Where Is the Line?
    Carol K Bates, Steven M Asch, Jeffrey L Jackson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08230-3
  11. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2023 May 23. 1-3
    Peer Review Questions & Answers: How?
    Laura Meyer-Junco, Alexandra Chloe Su.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2023.2213049
  12. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2023 May;44(5): 355-356
    The Peer Reviewer: An Endangered Species?
    Sandra P Thomas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2023.2206756
  13. J Sci Med Sport. 2023 May 12. pii: S1440-2440(23)00082-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Where have all the reviewers gone? Discussing the importance of the peer review community.
    Tim Meyer, Ollie Jay, Teatske Altenburg, Fiona Wilson, Jason Siegler, Toomas Timpka.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2023.05.002
  14. Nature. 2023 May 26.
    Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just.
    Natasha Gilbert.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Developing world; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01772-w
  15. Am J Emerg Med. 2023 May 18. pii: S0735-6757(23)00262-0. [Epub ahead of print]70 81-83
    ChatGPT and conversational artificial intelligence: Friend, foe, or future of research?
    Michael Gottlieb, Jeffrey A Kline, Alexander J Schneider, Wendy C Coates.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are increasingly utilized across healthcare. More recently, there has been a rise in the use AI within research, particularly through novel conversational AI platforms, such as ChatGPT. In this Controversies paper, we discuss the advantages, limitations, and future directions for ChatGPT and other forms of conversational AI in research and scholarly dissemination.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Ethics; Publication; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2023.05.018
  16. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 May 25.
    Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Scholarly Publication in Orthopaedic Surgery.
    Ishith Seth, Kirk Lower, Gabriella Bulloch, Nimish Seth.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002725
  17. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 Jun 01. 27(6): 425-426
    GPT-4, artificial intelligence and implications for publishing.
    C W M Ong, H D Blackbourn, G B Migliori.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.23.0143
  18. J Neurooncol. 2023 May 20.
    Large language model artificial intelligence: the current state and future of ChatGPT in neuro-oncology publishing.
    Christopher P Cifarelli, Jason P Sheehan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-023-04336-0
  19. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023 May 16. pii: S0301-2115(23)00187-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Using artificial intelligence chatbots like 'ChatGPT' to draft articles for medical journals - Advantages, limitations, ethical concerns and way forward.
    Thirunavukkarasu Arun Babu, Vijayan Sharmila.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.008
  20. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2023 May;pii: S0181-5512(23)00182-1. [Epub ahead of print]46(5): 433-440
    [Medical publishing in the chatbots era].
    R Tahiri, O Sandali, C Baudouin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2023.03.001
  21. Biol Psychol. 2023 May 24. pii: S0301-0511(23)00107-2. [Epub ahead of print] 108590
    Intelligence or artificial intelligence? More hard problems for authors of Biological Psychology, the neurosciences, and everyone else.
    Thomas Ritz.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; ChatGPT; academic malpractice; artificial text production; large language models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108590
  22. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 May 25.
    ChatGPT and scientific abstract writing: pitfalls and caution.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Swati Singh.
      
    Keywords:  Abstract; ChatGPT; Ethics; Ophthalmology; Publication; Scientific
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06123-z
  23. Int J Surg. 2023 May 24.
    Matters arising: authors of research papers must cautiously use ChatGPT for scientific writing.
    Arman Shafiee.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000515
  24. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2023 Jun;9(2): 101163
    Exploring the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation for scientific journals.
    Matthew R Smeds, Bernardo Mendes, Leigh Ann O'Banion, Sherene Shalhub.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvscit.2023.101163
  25. EXCLI J. 2023 ;22 395-396
    The Pandora's box of predatory journals.
    Lucindo J Quintans-Júnior, Adriano A S Araújo, Robério R Silva, Paulo R Martins-Filho.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2022-6011
  26. Surgery. 2023 May 21. pii: S0039-6060(23)00244-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Social media and academic surgical research dissemination.
    Adam D Price, Shimul A Shah, Syed A Ahmad.
      Academic research dissemination has evolved tremendously throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. With the advent of new technology and remote communication, the fast and efficient sharing of ideas has spread worldwide and has been appropriately embraced by academic surgical researchers. The use of social media by surgeons has expanded our ability to share hypotheses and published works that lead to higher degrees of collaboration than previously possible. The strengths of social media use for research dissemination in surgery include immediate collaboration on a global scale, faster dissemination of results previously hindered by the publishing process, open peer review from a wider audience, and enhancing the experience of academic meetings. However, social media use for research dissemination is not perfect and is hindered by lack of author verification, public misinterpretation, and lack of standardized enforceable professional guidelines. To combat these potential pitfalls, surgical societies should prioritize specific and intervenable guidelines for surgeons regarding the appropriate use of social media for research dissemination.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.04.038
  27. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Jun;28(3): 144-147
    Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points.
    Raffaella Ravinetto, Jerome Amir Singh.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Global Health; PUBLIC HEALTH; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111967
  28. Scientometrics. 2023 ;128(6): 3675-3701
    Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals.
    Elena Veretennik, Maria Yudkevich.
      Nowadays many countries and institutions use bibliometric assessment of journal quality in their research evaluation policies. However, bibliometric measures, such as impact factor or quartile, may provide a biased quality assessment for relatively new, regional, or non-mainstream journals, as these outlets usually do not possess a longstanding history, and may not be included into indexing databases. To reduce the information asymmetry between academic community (researchers, editors, policymakers) and journal management, we propose an alternative approach to evaluate journals quality signals using previous publication track record of authors. We explore the difference in the quality signals sent by regional journals. Traditional, journal-level, bibliometric measures are contrasted with generalised measures of authors' publishing records. We used a set of 50,477 articles and reviews in 83 regional journals in Physics and Astronomy (2014-2019) to extract and process data on 73 866 authors and their additional 329,245 publications in other Scopus-indexed journals. We found that traditional journal-level measures (such as journal quartile, CiteScore percentile, Scimago Journal Rank) tend to under-evaluate journal quality, thus contributing to an image of low-quality research venues. Author-level measures (including the share of papers in the Nature Index journals) send positive signals of journal quality and allow us to subdivide regional journals by their publishing strategies. These results suggest that research evaluation policies might consider attributing greater weight to regional journals, not only for the training purposes of doctoral students but also for gaining international visibility and impact.
    Keywords:  Journal quality; Regional journal; Research impact; Research policy; Signalling theory
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04723-4
  29. J Pak Med Assoc. 2023 05;73(5): 964-965
    Gender, subjects, developing countries, and other terms in research: the use of appropriate terminology in scientific writing.
    Aamir Raoof Memon, Farooq Azam Rathore.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.23-33
  30. BMC Med Educ. 2023 May 22. 23(1): 355
    Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers.
    Abdallah Al-Ani, Leen Al-Huneidy, Hala Sultan, Shahad Iqneibi, Jamil Nazzal, Asem Mansour, Maysa Al-Hussaini.
       AIMS: We explored the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards predatory publishing.
    METHODS: A retrospective pre-post quasi experimental design was implemented on HCWs within King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Following a 60-min educational lecture, a self-administered questionnaire was completed by participants. Pre- and post-intervention scores for familiarity, knowledge, practices, and attitudes were compared using the paired sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify predictors of mean differences (MD) of knowledge scores.
    RESULTS: A total of 121 respondents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants demonstrated underwhelming awareness of predatory publishing and average levels of knowledge of their characteristics. Furthermore, respondents did not take the necessary precautions to avoid predatory publishers. The intervention (i.e. the educational lecture) improved familiarity (MD: 13.4; 95%CI: 12.4 - 14.4; p-value < .001), knowledge of predatory journal's characteristics (MD: 12.9; 95%CI: 11.1 - 14.8; p-value < .001), awareness and perceived compliance to preventive measures (MD: 7.7; 95%CI: 6.7 - 8.6; p-value < .001), and positively influenced attitudes towards open access and safe publishing (MD: 0.8; 95%CI: 0.2 - 1.5; p-value = 0.012). Females had significantly lower familiarity scores (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, those who had published in open access journals, received at least one predatory e-mail, or had more than 5 published original articles had significantly higher familiarity and knowledge scores (all p-value < 0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: An educational lecture proved effective in improving awareness of KHCC's HCW's to predatory publishers. Nonetheless, the mediocrity of pre-intervention scores raises concerns on effectiveness of the predatory covert practices.
    Keywords:  Educational intervention; Jordan; Oncology; Predatory publishers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04312-2
  31. Educ Prim Care. 2023 May 24. 1
    The art of writing letters to journals….
    Simon Gay.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2023.2215209
  32. Nat Cancer. 2023 May;4(5): 583-584
    The craft (and art) of scientific writing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-023-00579-y
  33. Indian J Orthop. 2023 Jun;57(6): 783-788
    Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts.
    Srinivas B S Kambhampati, Lalit Maini.
      Authorship in scientific manuscripts indicates intellectual contribution of individuals to a research project and authors play a key role in the research and dissemination of results of a research project. It is important for authors to follow guidelines on authorship and submission of manuscripts and to agree on the order of authorship before beginning the project. Criteria for authorship, roles and responsibilities of authors, author metrics and misconduct of authors and their consequences are discussed in this editorial. Properly assigning authorship ensures transparency, accountability, and fairness in the scientific community.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Contributorship; Editorial; Role and responsibility of the author
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-023-00896-5
  34. Microlife. 2023 ;4 uqac024
    Bacteria without their phages are just not competitive.
    Sarah Wettstadt.
      
    Keywords:  academic life; bacteria; mobilom; phages; research career; science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsml/uqac024
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.