bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒06‒25
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Intensive Care Med. 2023 Jun 20. 8850666231182563
      PURPOSE: Significant increases in the volume of preprint articles due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined the reliability of preprint articles compared to their peer-reviewed publications.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preprint articles evaluating experimental studies of select treatment options (anticoagulation, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and tocilizumab) for COVID-19 in the critically ill, available in a peer-reviewed publication were screened for inclusion within Altmetric (n = 2040). A total of 40 articles met inclusion criteria, with 21 being randomly selected for evaluation. The primary outcome of this evaluation was a change in a study's reported primary outcome or statistical significance between preprint and peer-reviewed articles. Secondary outcomes included changes in primary/secondary outcome effect size and change in study conclusion.
    RESULTS: One article (4.8%, 95% CI 0.12%-23.8%) had a change in the primary outcome. Seven articles (33.3%, 95% CI 14.6%-57.0%) had a change in the primary outcome's effect measure. Five studies (23.8%, 95% CI 8.2%-47.2%) had changes in statistical significance of at least one secondary outcome. Four studies (19.0%, 95% CI 5.4%-41.9%) had a change in study conclusion.
    CONCLUSIONS: In preprint articles of COVID-19 treatments, the provided primary outcome is generally reliable, while interpretation of secondary outcomes should be made with caution, while awaiting completion of the peer-review process.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; anticoagulation; dexamethasone; hydroxychloroquine; preprint; published; remdesivir; tocilizumab
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666231182563
  2. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2023 ;9 e1159
      With the rapidly increasing amount of scientific literature, it is getting continuously more difficult for researchers in different disciplines to keep up-to-date with the recent findings in their field of study. Processing scientific articles in an automated fashion has been proposed as a solution to this problem, but the accuracy of such processing remains very poor for extraction tasks beyond the most basic ones (like locating and identifying entities and simple classification based on predefined categories). Few approaches have tried to change how we publish scientific results in the first place, such as by making articles machine-interpretable by expressing them with formal semantics from the start. In the work presented here, we propose a first step in this direction by setting out to demonstrate that we can formally publish high-level scientific claims in formal logic, and publish the results in a special issue of an existing journal. We use the concept and technology of nanopublications for this endeavor, and represent not just the submissions and final papers in this RDF-based format, but also the whole process in between, including reviews, responses, and decisions. We do this by performing a field study with what we call formalization papers, which contribute a novel formalization of a previously published claim. We received 15 submissions from 18 authors, who then went through the whole publication process leading to the publication of their contributions in the special issue. Our evaluation shows the technical and practical feasibility of our approach. The participating authors mostly showed high levels of interest and confidence, and mostly experienced the process as not very difficult, despite the technical nature of the current user interfaces. We believe that these results indicate that it is possible to publish scientific results from different fields with machine-interpretable semantics from the start, which in turn opens countless possibilities to radically improve in the future the effectiveness and efficiency of the scientific endeavor as a whole.
    Keywords:  Nanopublications; Semantic publishing; Structured peer-reviewing; Super-pattern
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1159
  3. Crit Care Med. 2023 Jun 21.
      The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Reviewer Academy seeks to train and establish a community of trusted, reliable, and skilled peer reviewers with diverse backgrounds and interests to promote high-quality reviews for each of the SCCM journals. Goals of the Academy include building accessible resources to highlight qualities of excellent manuscript reviews; educating and mentoring a diverse group of healthcare professionals; and establishing and upholding standards for insightful and informative reviews. This manuscript will map the mission of the Reviewer Academy with a succinct summary of the importance of peer review, process of reviewing a manuscript, and the expected ethical standards of reviewers. We will equip readers to target concise, thoughtful feedback as peer reviewers, advance their understanding of the editorial process and inspire readers to integrate medical journalism into diverse professional careers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005962
  4. Public Health Rev. 2023 ;44 1605601
      
    Keywords:  BIV1-CovIran; ethics education in medicine and public health; misconduct; peer review crisis; public health
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2023.1605601
  5. Fam Syst Health. 2023 Jun;41(2): 135-139
      In this editorial, the authors explain the function and process of peer review, challenges they experienced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and strategies for ensuring that this fundamental process continues with integrity. In conclusion, the efforts of this editorial team to maintain a robust reviewer pool by inspiring, rewarding, training, and growing diversity cannot be the only efforts in this area. Those who "decline" jury duty may experience punitive consequences; however, there are no direct consequences for a qualified professional who declines to review, even routinely. Ultimately, the scientific community suffers, with a slower process that can then deteriorate. As a collective of professionals who value the contributions of science, we must all work to protect and grow participation in reviewing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000811
  6. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(6): e0286206
      There is widespread debate on whether to anonymize author identities in peer review. The key argument for anonymization is to mitigate bias, whereas arguments against anonymization posit various uses of author identities in the review process. The Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) 2023 conference adopted a middle ground by initially anonymizing the author identities from reviewers, revealing them after the reviewer had submitted their initial reviews, and allowing the reviewer to change their review subsequently. We present an analysis of the reviews pertaining to the identification and use of author identities. Our key findings are: (I) A majority of reviewers self-report not knowing and being unable to guess the authors' identities for the papers they were reviewing. (II) After the initial submission of reviews, 7.1% of reviews changed their overall merit score and 3.8% changed their self-reported reviewer expertise. (III) There is a very weak and statistically insignificant correlation of the rank of authors' affiliations with the change in overall merit; there is a weak but statistically significant correlation with respect to change in reviewer expertise. We also conducted an anonymous survey to obtain opinions from reviewers and authors. The main findings from the 200 survey responses are: (i) A vast majority of participants favor anonymizing author identities in some form. (ii) The "middle-ground" initiative of ITCS 2023 was appreciated. (iii) Detecting conflicts of interest is a challenge that needs to be addressed if author identities are anonymized. Overall, these findings support anonymization of author identities in some form (e.g., as was done in ITCS 2023), as long as there is a robust and efficient way to check conflicts of interest.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286206
  7. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2023 Jun 20. pii: S2341-2879(23)00133-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.
    Keywords:  Calidad; Editorial process; Peer review; Proceso editorial; Profesionalización; Professionalization; Quality; Research ethics; Responsabilidad científica; Revisión por pares; Scientific responsibility; Ética en investigación
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2023.05.006
  8. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2023 Jun 01. 24(2): 88-89
      "Professor, have you ever seen anything like this?". Few weeks ago I was asked this question by two young and esteemed specialist in orthodontics of my research group, actually PhD students, who showed me a laptop screen. "No, I have never seen anything so potentially extraordinary. But doubts arise: is this legal? Or rather, is it ethical for us to use it in the field of research?" So I asked the questioners, Dr. Serafin and Dr. Bocchieri, to write a short essay on this new form of artificial intelligence, the chatbots, to give me an idea of what they are, what their potential is, and how they can change the veracity of data when an artificial mind replaces a human one. After "letterally" 5 minutes, they returned to me and let me read the following: The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has led to a proliferation of AI-powered tools that are having a significant impact in the realm of academic writing to automate various aspects of the editorial process, from research to proofreading and even generating complete high-quality scientific articles. Chatbots are AI-virtual assistants that offer significant benefits but there are also important ethical considerations that must be considered. One concern is related to the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, particularly in scientific writing where accuracy is of utmost importance. There are also concerns about the potential for AI to be used to produce plagiarized or fraudulent content, which could undermine the credibility of scientific soundness. To mitigate this risk, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines and regulations for their use. Additionally, academic institutions and publishers should take steps to verify the authenticity of authors and promote transparency and accountability in the publishing process. The use of chatbots in academic writing has the potential to revolutionize the way in which research is conducted and written. However, it is important to ensure that the ethical implications of this technology are carefully considered and addressed. This includes ensuring that AI-generated content is accurate, reliable, and trustworthy and that the use of AI does not result in the displacement of human imagination. To address these ethical considerations, it is recommended that academic institutions and scientific journals work together to establish clear guidelines and regulations for the use of AI in academic writing, ensuring that AI-powered tools are ethical. By taking a responsible approach, we can ensure that the benefits of this technology are realized while minimizing any potential negative consequences. Finally, the most important but missing information is that this editorial is fully written by a chatbot. Therefore, pay attention: the search for health for our patients must go through scientific honesty that produces data and analyzes them "humanly". I share my amazement, but also my concern. As a university professor, as a clinician, as a researcher, but also as a "father" of future orthodontists, I always have doubts about the message we want to leave, and in this editorial I would like to reproduce an excerpt from a conversation with Marco and Salvo, as if we were discussing the legitimacy of cheating in a card game.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2023.24.02.01
  9. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jun 20. pii: S0002-9394(23)00237-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      PURPOSE: To discuss the implications of large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology research, as well as the associated ethical considerations.DESIGN: Perspective.
    METHODS: This discussion reviews the potential uses of LLMs such as ChatGPT in ophthalmology research, highlights the associated threats and ethical considerations, and proposes solutions for their use in ophthalmology research and scientific writing.
    RESULTS: With the increasing interest in LLMs, such as ChatGPT, their diverse utility has been widely explored, including their application in research and scientific writing. LLMs have the potential to guide researchers throughout the different stages of their research, from idea generation to drafting a scientific piece. However, there are significant ethical concerns and challenges related to scientific integrity in ophthalmology research that should be addressed by scientific journals. Our review of the ten highest-impact-factor ophthalmology journals revealed that the number of journals addressing this topic in their submission guidelines is rapidly increasing. Therefore, we propose certain domains that all journals should consider regarding the use of LLMs in research.
    CONCLUSIONS: As LLMs continue to improve, their use in scientific writing will remain a contentious issue due to the ethical dilemmas involved in determining the appropriate scope of their use. This article reviews the ethical dilemmas related to the use of LLMs in ophthalmology research and calls for the prompt development of guidelines for their ethical use in manuscript writing as ophthalmology journals update their editorial policies with respect to LLMs.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Large Language Model; Ophthalmology; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2023.06.004
  10. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023 May 27. pii: S1748-6815(23)00301-7. [Epub ahead of print]84 233-234
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2023.05.045
  11. Vaccine. 2023 Jun 23. pii: S0264-410X(23)00671-0. [Epub ahead of print]41(28): 4065-4066
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.06.010
  12. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2023 Jun 22.
      This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of who should be listed as an author on a given publication and provide advice as to how to navigate potential tensions in the authorship decision-making process.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10256-5
  13. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 Jun 21. 29(4): 22
      In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.
    Keywords:  Authors; Ethics; Fair recognition; Integrity; Technicians
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00445-1
  14. Trials. 2023 Jun 22. 24(1): 423
      BACKGROUND: As a practice-oriented discipline, strict adherence to reporting guidelines is particularly important in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts of the nursing area. However, whether abstract reports after 2010 have complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guideline is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether the publication of CONSORT-A has improved abstract reporting in nursing and explores the factors associated with better adherence to the guidelines.METHODS: We searched the Web of Science for 200 RCTs randomly selected from ten nursing journals. We used a data extraction form based on CONSORT-A, including 16 items, to analyze the reporting adherence to the guidelines, and the reporting rate of each item and the total score for each abstract were used to indicate adherence and overall quality score (OQS, range 0-16). A comparison of the total mean score between the two periods was made, and affecting factors were analyzed.
    RESULTS: In the studies we included, 48 abstracts were published pre-CONSORT-A whereas 152 post-CONSORT-A. The overall mean score for reporting adherence to 16 items was 7.41 ± 2.78 and 9.16 ± 2.76 for pre- and post-CONSORT-A, respectively (total score: 16). The most poorly reported items are "harms (0%)," "outcomes in method (8.5%)," "randomization (25%)," and "blinding (6.5%)." Items including the year of publication, impact factor, multiple center trial, word count, and structured abstract are significantly associated with higher adherence.
    CONCLUSIONS: The adherence to abstract reporting in nursing literature has improved since the CONSORT-A era, but the overall completeness of RCT abstracts remained low. A joint effort by authors, editors, and journals is necessary to improve reporting quality of RCT abstracts.
    Keywords:  Abstracts; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts; Randomized controlled trials
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07419-5
  15. BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 21. 13(6): e070545
      INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based medicine. However, an article with low reporting quality may mislead both experts and the general public into an erroneous decision. Data sharing can contribute to the truthfulness and transparency of trials. Acupuncture RCTs have been increasing rapidly these years, but the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs are not clear. Thus, this study will provide the current status of the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional study will be conducted. The seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database and VIP will be searched between 1 January 2012 and 15 October 2022 to identify acupuncture RCTs. The basic characteristics of included trials will be summarised. The reporting quality for included RCTs will be assessed by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture. The data-sharing level will be assessed by open science practices.
    ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.
    Keywords:  COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE; JOURNALISM (see Medical Journalism); MEDICAL JOURNALISM
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070545
  16. Urol Pract. 2023 Jul;10(4): 285-287
      
    Keywords:  education; health policy; health services research; medical; publications; urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000418