bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–08–20
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty.
  2. Scientific papers and artificial intelligence. Brave new world?
  3. The editor is not the author: artificial intelligence and public health publishing.
  4. Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence.
  5. Community members' experiences training as medical journal reviewers.
  6. Peer Review Questions & Answers: How?
  7. Reimagining peer review: the emergence of peer community in registered reports system.
  8. The ASGLOS Study: A global survey on how predatory journals affect scientific practice.
  9. Predatory journals entrap unsuspecting scientists. Here's how universities can support researchers.
  10. Threats and Opportunities Associated With Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals.
  11. Threats and Opportunities Associated With Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals-Reply.
  12. Science communication in experimental biology: experiences and recommendations.
  13. Science communication gets personal: Ambivalent effects of self-disclosure in science communication on trust in science.
  14. Towards reproducible radiomics research: introduction of a database for radiomics studies.
  15. Publishing on Topical Subjects in Total Joint Arthroplasty is Associated with Increased Social Media Attention.
  16. Publishing quality improvement studies: learning to share and sharing to learn.
  17. BJA Open: a new open access journal for anaesthesiology, critical care, and pain medicine.
  1. Nature. 2023 Aug;620(7974): 482-484
    Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty.
    Myriam Vidal Valero.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Culture
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02554-0
  2. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2023 Aug 17. 1-2
    Scientific papers and artificial intelligence. Brave new world?
    Jørgen Nexøe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2023.2240114
  3. Perspect Public Health. 2023 Jul;143(4): 182-183
    The editor is not the author: artificial intelligence and public health publishing.
    Theo Stickley.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139231191897
  4. Diagnosis (Berl). 2023 Aug 17.
    Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence.
    Mehdi Dadkhah, Marilyn H Oermann, Hegedüs Mihály, Raghu Raman, Lóránt Dénes Dávid.
       OBJECTIVES: Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers.
    METHODS: The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields.
    RESULTS: The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper.
    CONCLUSIONS: This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal.
    Keywords:  fake paper; hijacked journals; machine learning; paper mills; predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090
  5. Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Aug 14. 9(1): 66
    Community members' experiences training as medical journal reviewers.
    Cyleste C Collins, Erika Hood, Jeri Jewett-Tennant, Kurt Stange, Ashwini R Sehgal.
       PURPOSE: Although medical research dissemination is intended to benefit members of society, few members of society actually participate in the process of publishing findings. This study shares findings from community members' (including patients and the public) experiences being trained as medical journal reviewers.
    METHODS: We analyzed findings from two focus group interviews of community reviewers (N = 29) to identify themes in their experiences with the training program.
    RESULTS: Community members trained as journal reviewers appreciated learning the context under which manuscript development and review occur from authors and funders, the value of the community member perspectives to science, and strengthened their critical thinking skills. A range of training tools and strategies included glossaries of research terms, creating review guides, practicing reviews, being trained by a supportive team, and working with and learning collaboratively.
    CONCLUSIONS: Training as a journal reviewer has a positive impact on participating community members. Programs training community members as journal reviewers should incorporate guest speakers well-versed in community engaged research, group activities, a variety of training tools and materials, and highly supportive training teams.
    Keywords:  Case study; Community engaged research; Medical research; Patient and public involvement; Research dissemination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00482-x
  6. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2023 Aug 17. 1-4
    Peer Review Questions & Answers: How?
    Laura Meyer-Junco, Julie M Waldfogel, Nakia Duncan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2023.2245738
  7. J Nephrol. 2023 Aug 18.
    Reimagining peer review: the emergence of peer community in registered reports system.
    Carmine Zoccali, Francesca Mallamaci.
      The traditional peer review process in medicine faces a crisis marked by publication delays, potential bias, and a lack of transparency. These issues hinder scientific progress and undermine the credibility of published medical findings, which inform healthcare practices and clinical decision-making. In response, innovative models like the Peer Community In (PCI) Research Reports (RR) have emerged, providing a rapid, transparent, and collaborative evaluation process for scientific research. Peer Community In Research Reports aims to address the issues within the traditional peer review system by focusing on preprints and fostering trust and credibility in published research. The success of the PCI RR model depends on the active engagement and support of researchers, publishers, and other stakeholders. Ideally, researchers should submit their work to PCI RR, while publishers should be open to embracing innovative peer review models. Policymakers and funding agencies should promote the adoption of open science principles and practices at a systemic level. In conclusion, addressing the crisis in the peer review process requires the collective efforts of the entire scientific community. By embracing and supporting innovative alternatives like the PCI RR model, stakeholders can help establish a more efficient and credible peer review system, ultimately benefiting scientific progress and patient care.
    Keywords:  Medical publishing; Peer Community In Research Reports (PCI RR); Peer review; Referees
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01709-6
  8. Dev World Bioeth. 2023 Aug 16.
    The ASGLOS Study: A global survey on how predatory journals affect scientific practice.
    ASGLOS Study Group
      Predatory journals and conferences are an emerging problem in scientific literature as they have financial motives, without guaranteeing scientific quality and exposure. The main objective of the ASGLOS project is to investigate the predatory e-email characteristics, management, and possible consequences and to analyse the extent of the current problem at each academic level. To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. A total of 978 responses were analysed from 58 countries around the world. A total of 64.8% of participants indicated the need for 3 or fewer emails to acquire a criticality view in distinguishing a real invitation from a spam, while 11.5% still have doubt regardless of how many emails they get. The AGLOS Study clearly highlights the problem of academic e-mail spam by predatory journals and conferences. Our findings signify the importance of providing academic career-oriented advice and organising training sessions to increase awareness of predatory publishing for those conducting scientific research.
    Keywords:  academic spam; electronic mail; predatory journal; survey; time management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12421
  9. Nature. 2023 Aug;620(7974): 469
    Predatory journals entrap unsuspecting scientists. Here's how universities can support researchers.
    Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri.
      
    Keywords:  Developing world; Institutions; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02553-1
  10. JAMA. 2023 08 15. 330(7): 662
    Threats and Opportunities Associated With Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals.
    Danna Wu, Guo Yu, Guo-Fu Li.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.10777
  11. JAMA. 2023 08 15. 330(7): 663
    Threats and Opportunities Associated With Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals-Reply.
    John P A Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Stefania Boccia.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.10780
  12. J Exp Biol. 2023 Aug 15. pii: jeb245780. [Epub ahead of print]226(16):
    Science communication in experimental biology: experiences and recommendations.
    Brittney G Borowiec.
      During the century of Journal of Experimental Biology's existence, science communication has established itself as an interdisciplinary field of theory and practice. Guided by my experiences as a scientist and science writer, I argue that science communication skills are distinct from scientific communication skills and that engaging in science communication is particularly beneficial to early-career researchers; although taking on these dual roles is not without its difficulties, as I discuss in this Perspective. In the hope of encouraging more scientists to become science communicators, I provide: (i) general considerations for scientists looking to engage in science communication (knowing their audience, storytelling, avoiding jargon) and (ii) specific recommendations for crafting effective contributions on social media (content, packaging, engagement), an emerging, accessible and potentially impactful mode of science communication. Effective science communication can boost the work of experimental biologists: it can impact public opinion by incisively describing the consequences of the climate crisis and can raise social acceptance of fundamental research and experiments on animals.
    Keywords:  Early career researchers; Jargon; Outreach; Science writing; Social media; Storytelling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.245780
  13. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2023 Aug 17.
    Science communication gets personal: Ambivalent effects of self-disclosure in science communication on trust in science.
    Marlene Sophie Altenmüller, Lorenz Kampschulte, Laura Verbeek, Mario Gollwitzer.
      In an attempt to display themselves as warm, approachable, and trustworthy, researchers might reveal personal details about themselves (i.e., self-disclosure) when communicating their science to the public. Here, we test whether self-disclosure in science communication can actually increase public trust in science. We present six online experiments (overall N = 2,431), integrate their results in a mini meta-analysis, and report a field experiment in a science museum (N = 480): In sum, our findings suggest that self-disclosure leads to small, but measurable increases in laypeople's feelings of closeness toward researchers and perceptions of researchers' warmth-related trustworthiness; yet, self-disclosure also leads to decreases in competence-related trustworthiness perceptions. The credibility of scientific findings was, overall, unaffected by self-disclosing communication. Findings from the field study further question whether self-disclosure in science communication has any practical relevance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000489
  14. Eur Radiol. 2023 Aug 12.
    Towards reproducible radiomics research: introduction of a database for radiomics studies.
    Tugba Akinci D'Antonoli, Renato Cuocolo, Bettina Baessler, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos.
       OBJECTIVES: To investigate the model-, code-, and data-sharing practices in the current radiomics research landscape and to introduce a radiomics research database.
    METHODS: A total of 1254 articles published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, in leading radiology journals (European Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, Radiology, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Radiology: Imaging Cancer) were retrospectively screened, and 257 original research articles were included in this study. The categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact tests or chi-square test and numerical variables using Student's t test with relation to the year of publication.
    RESULTS: Half of the articles (128 of 257) shared the model by either including the final model formula or reporting the coefficients of selected radiomics features. A total of 73 (28%) models were validated on an external independent dataset. Only 16 (6%) articles shared the data or used publicly available open datasets. Similarly, only 20 (7%) of the articles shared the code. A total of 7 (3%) articles both shared code and data. All collected data in this study is presented in a radiomics research database (RadBase) and could be accessed at https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase .
    CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, the majority of published radiomics models were not technically reproducible since they shared neither model nor code and data. There is still room for improvement in carrying out reproducible and open research in the field of radiomics.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: To date, the reproducibility of radiomics research and open science practices within the radiomics research community are still very low. Ensuring reproducible radiomics research with model-, code-, and data-sharing practices will facilitate faster clinical translation.
    KEY POINTS: • There is a discrepancy between the number of published radiomics papers and the clinical implementation of these published radiomics models. • The main obstacle to clinical implementation is the lack of model-, code-, and data-sharing practices. • In order to translate radiomics research into clinical practice, the radiomics research community should adopt open science practices.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Multiomics; Radiomics; Reproducibility of results
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10095-3
  15. J Arthroplasty. 2023 Aug 11. pii: S0883-5403(23)00816-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing on Topical Subjects in Total Joint Arthroplasty is Associated with Increased Social Media Attention.
    Kevin T Root, Andrew B Harris, Lauren Ladehoff, Robert J Cueto, Michael J Diaza, Julius K Oni.
       BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are often used for research dissemination and collaboration. Given the increased prevalence of online-only publications, understanding what drives research dissemination is important. Here, we analyzed factors associated with increased social media attention among peer-reviewed publications in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
    METHODS: We analyzed publications about TKA, THA, or UKA from 2010 to 2022 using a national database. We analyzed a weighted count of social media mentions, using negative binomial regressions adjusting for days since publication. Publications on "hot topics" in arthroplasty were examined including navigation/robotics, COVID-19, race/ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and reimbursement. There were 9,542 publications included, 4,216 (44%) were open access, 338 (3.5%) included navigation, 32 (0.34%) discussed race/ethnicity, 20 (0.2%) discussed COVID-19, 3,840 (40%) were randomized studies, 30 (0.3%) discussed reimbursement, and 2,867 (30%) were in top 10 orthopaedic journals.
    RESULTS: Factors associated with higher weighted score included studies about COVID-19 (50 vs. 6.0, P<0.001), race/ethnicity (15.8 vs. 6.0, P <0.001), open access status (6.3 vs. 5.8, P =0.001), and randomized studies (6.5 vs. 5.7, P <0.001). Studies from top-10 journals had a lower score (5.8 vs. 6.2, P=0.025), as did studies about body mass index (3.4 vs. 6.1, P =0.001). Studies about navigation and reimbursement did not have significantly different scores.
    CONCLUSION: Studies on COVID-19, race/ethnicity, randomized studies, and open access publication were associated with increased social media while those in top-10 orthopaedic journals had lower scores.
    Keywords:  Attention Score; Hot Topics; Total Hip Arthroplasty; Total Knee Arthroplasty; Uni-compartmental Hip Arthroplasty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.08.021
  16. BJA Open. 2023 Mar;5 100123
    Publishing quality improvement studies: learning to share and sharing to learn.
    Duncan Wagstaff, Suneetha Ramani Moonesinghe.
      This editorial welcomes the decision of BJA Open to publish quality improvement (QI) studies. It summarises the current problems with conducting, evaluating, and publishing QI studies. It highlights existing guidance for prospective authors to follow regarding the reporting of QI interventions, their context(s), underlying theories, and evaluation. In so doing, we hope to encourage the publication of more QI studies of sufficient quality to facilitate learning or replication elsewhere.
    Keywords:  Anaesthesia; Improvement science; Perioperative medicine; Quality improvement; Surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjao.2023.100123
  17. BJA Open. 2022 Mar;1 100001
    BJA Open: a new open access journal for anaesthesiology, critical care, and pain medicine.
    Philip M Hopkins.
      BJA Open is a new open access journal to complement British Journal of Anaesthesia. This editorial describes the rationale for the journal and the breadth of content it is seeking to attract. As with other BJA titles, BJA Open conforms to the highest standards of editorial and publication practice, and it aims to provide sector-leading author experience combined with reliable peer-reviewed content for the reader.
    Keywords:  anaesthesiology; critical care; databases, bibliographic; journals as topic; open access; pain medicine; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjao.2021.100001
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.