bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–09–17
25 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Viewing research assessment, the academic reward system, and academic publishing through the power/knowledge lens of Foucault.
  2. Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university.
  3. How Far Goes the Un-ethic of the Authors Who Submit the Articles to the Journals, Or, Better to Say, Their "Scientific Insolence"?
  4. How to curb bias in manuscript assessments.
  5. Writing an Effective Peer Review.
  6. The peer review process.
  7. A Quick Guide for Becoming a Better Peer Reviewer.
  8. Training peer reviewers.
  9. How to Write an Effective Discussion.
  10. ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Concerns and Ethical Considerations.
  11. Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing: opportunities and concerns. Editorial.
  12. The Potential and Concerns of Using AI in Scientific Research: ChatGPT Performance Evaluation.
  13. Does AI's touch diminish the artistry of scientific writing or elevate it?
  14. Implications of ChatGPT for cytopathology and recommendations for updating JASC guidelines on the responsible use of artificial intelligence.
  15. Comment on: Will collaborative publishing with ChatGPT drive academic writing in the future?
  16. Author response to: Comment on: Will collaborative publishing with ChatGPT drive academic writing in the future?
  17. Research ethics, consent and publication.
  18. Publishing Quality Improvement Projects: Know the Guidelines Before Starting Your Project.
  19. Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses.
  20. When I use a word . . . The ambiguity of "work" in the ICMJE recommendations on publishing in medical journals.
  21. SnapShot: Reporting practices for publishing results with human PSCs and tissue stem cells.
  22. Data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field: An international survey of trauma researchers.
  23. Readership Awareness Series - Paper 7: An Overview of Impact Factor and Other Scientometrics.
  24. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.
  25. How to avoid mistakes in science publications.
  1. Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 ;8 1179376
    Viewing research assessment, the academic reward system, and academic publishing through the power/knowledge lens of Foucault.
    Timothy D Bowman.
      The academic research assessment system, the academic reward system, and the academic publishing system are interrelated mechanisms that facilitate the scholarly production of knowledge. This article considers these systems using a Foucauldian lens to examine the power/knowledge relationships found within and through these systems. A brief description of the various systems is introduced followed by examples of instances where Foucault's power, knowledge, discourse, and power/knowledge concepts are useful to provide a broader understanding of the norms and rules associated with each system, how these systems form a network of power relationships that reinforce and shape one another.
    Keywords:  Foucault; academic publishing; academic reward system; power/knowledge; research assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1179376
  2. Account Res. 2023 Sep 11. 1-15
    Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university.
    R M Jingura, J Chigwada, T Diver, D Shangwa.
      The publish or perish concept requires academics to ensure that they take part in research and publish the research results in academic journals. The emergency of predatory publishers has led to negativity in the scholarly publishing process. Some researchers are unaware that some publishers are unethical. A study was conducted to determine the extent of predatory publishing in Zimbabwe among academics. A survey was carried out using a multi-method approach at a public university in Zimbabwe. Articles published between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved using the Harzing publish or perish software. In total, 977 articles were retrieved, and after data cleaning using Open Refine, 357 records were analyzed using the journal evaluation rubric and scoring sheet to note the extent of predatory publishing among the various schools. The articles were then classified into 3 sections i.e., predatory, not predatory, and borderline. The findings revealed that predatory publishing is prevalent in the social sciences. The authors recommend the importance of training to create awareness about the dangers of predatory publishing and how to avoid them to improve the scholarly output of the institution, which is key to university ranking.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; Predatory publishing; Publish or perish; Publishing process; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2256672
  3. Acta Inform Med. 2023 Jun;31(2): 154-158
    How Far Goes the Un-ethic of the Authors Who Submit the Articles to the Journals, Or, Better to Say, Their "Scientific Insolence"?
    Izet Masic.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2023.31.154-158
  4. Nat Biomed Eng. 2023 Sep;7(9): 1055-1056
    How to curb bias in manuscript assessments.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-023-01104-3
  5. Fam Med. 2023 Sep;55(8): 566
    Writing an Effective Peer Review.
    Daniel Jason Frasca.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2023.616815
  6. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2023 Sep 12.
    The peer review process.
    Mark Rosenfield.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13233
  7. J Phys Act Health. 2023 Sep 13. 1-4
    A Quick Guide for Becoming a Better Peer Reviewer.
    Ding Ding, Pedro C Hallal, Loretta DiPietro, Harold W Bill Kohl.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2023-0328
  8. J Food Sci. 2023 Sep;88(9): 3621-3622
    Training peer reviewers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16758
  9. Respir Care. 2023 Sep 12. pii: respcare.11435. [Epub ahead of print]
    How to Write an Effective Discussion.
    Dean R Hess.
      Explaining the meaning of the results to the reader is the purpose of the discussion section of a research paper. There are elements of the discussion section that should be included and pitfalls that should be avoided. Always write the discussion section for the reader. Remember that the focus is to help the reader understand the study and that the focus should be on the study data.
    Keywords:  communication; manuscripts; medical; publishing; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11435
  10. Cureus. 2023 Aug;15(8): e43292
    ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Concerns and Ethical Considerations.
    Alexander S Doyal, David Sender, Monika Nanda, Ricardo A Serrano.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) language generation models, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize the field of medical writing and other natural language processing (NLP) tasks. It is crucial to consider the ethical concerns that come with their use. These include bias, misinformation, privacy, lack of transparency, job displacement, stifling creativity, plagiarism, authorship, and dependence. Therefore, it is essential to develop strategies to understand and address these concerns. Important techniques include common bias and misinformation detection, ensuring privacy, providing transparency, and being mindful of the impact on employment. The AI-generated text must be critically reviewed by medical experts to validate the output generated by these models before being used in any clinical or medical context. By considering these ethical concerns and taking appropriate measures, we can ensure that the benefits of these powerful tools are maximized while minimizing any potential harm. This article focuses on the implications of AI assistants in medical writing and hopes to provide insight into the perceived rapid rate of technological progression from a historical and ethical perspective.
    Keywords:  ai & robotics in healthcare; artificial intelligence (ai); ethics; machine learning; medical writing; natural language processing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43292
  11. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2023 Jul-Sep;59(3):59(3): 177-179
    Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing: opportunities and concerns. Editorial.
    Federica Napolitani, Enrico Alleva, Annarita Barbaro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_23_03_01
  12. JMIR Med Educ. 2023 Sep 14. 9 e47049
    The Potential and Concerns of Using AI in Scientific Research: ChatGPT Performance Evaluation.
    Zuheir N Khlaif, Allam Mousa, Muayad Kamal Hattab, Jamil Itmazi, Amjad A Hassan, Mageswaran Sanmugam, Abedalkarim Ayyoub.
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has many applications in various aspects of our daily life, including health, criminal, education, civil, business, and liability law. One aspect of AI that has gained significant attention is natural language processing (NLP), which refers to the ability of computers to understand and generate human language.
    OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the potential for, and concerns of, using AI in scientific research. For this purpose, high-impact research articles were generated by analyzing the quality of reports generated by ChatGPT and assessing the application's impact on the research framework, data analysis, and the literature review. The study also explored concerns around ownership and the integrity of research when using AI-generated text.
    METHODS: A total of 4 articles were generated using ChatGPT, and thereafter evaluated by 23 reviewers. The researchers developed an evaluation form to assess the quality of the articles generated. Additionally, 50 abstracts were generated using ChatGPT and their quality was evaluated. The data were subjected to ANOVA and thematic analysis to analyze the qualitative data provided by the reviewers.
    RESULTS: When using detailed prompts and providing the context of the study, ChatGPT would generate high-quality research that could be published in high-impact journals. However, ChatGPT had a minor impact on developing the research framework and data analysis. The primary area needing improvement was the development of the literature review. Moreover, reviewers expressed concerns around ownership and the integrity of the research when using AI-generated text. Nonetheless, ChatGPT has a strong potential to increase human productivity in research and can be used in academic writing.
    CONCLUSIONS: AI-generated text has the potential to improve the quality of high-impact research articles. The findings of this study suggest that decision makers and researchers should focus more on the methodology part of the research, which includes research design, developing research tools, and analyzing data in depth, to draw strong theoretical and practical implications, thereby establishing a revolution in scientific research in the era of AI. The practical implications of this study can be used in different fields such as medical education to deliver materials to develop the basic competencies for both medicine students and faculty members.
    Keywords:  AI; ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; research ethics; scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/47049
  13. Crit Care. 2023 09 11. 27(1): 350
    Does AI's touch diminish the artistry of scientific writing or elevate it?
    Mugdha Gandhi, Madhura Gandhi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04634-z
  14. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2023 Jul 07. pii: S2213-2945(23)00062-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Implications of ChatGPT for cytopathology and recommendations for updating JASC guidelines on the responsible use of artificial intelligence.
    Joshua Pantanowitz, Liron Pantanowitz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2023.07.001
  15. Br J Surg. 2023 Sep 13. pii: znad297. [Epub ahead of print]
    Comment on: Will collaborative publishing with ChatGPT drive academic writing in the future?
    Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad297
  16. Br J Surg. 2023 Sep 13. pii: znad295. [Epub ahead of print]
    Author response to: Comment on: Will collaborative publishing with ChatGPT drive academic writing in the future?
    Sisith Ariyaratne, Karthikeyan P Iyengar, Rajesh Botchu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad295
  17. Heliyon. 2023 Aug;9(8): e18419
    Research ethics, consent and publication.
    Marc Cornock, Margaret Rees.
      
    Keywords:  Consent; Ethics; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18419
  18. J Pediatr Health Care. 2023 Sep 11. pii: S0891-5245(23)00238-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing Quality Improvement Projects: Know the Guidelines Before Starting Your Project.
    Teresa Bates, Patricia C Clark, Jessica Marcus, Regena Spratling.
      Health care clinicians, educators, and students who plan and implement quality improvement (QI) projects must know reporting guidelines for successful project planning and publication. We aimed to identify QI guidelines, which authors can locate, and highlight how best to use them for manuscript preparation. We also address guidelines for educational QI projects. Because of the increasing number of Doctor of Nursing Practice projects generated, these students and their mentors must be familiar with commonly used guidelines for reporting QI projects to facilitate peer review, demonstrate quality and rigor of work, reduce revisions, and potentially accelerate a paper's acceptance for publication.
    Keywords:  Quality improvement; mentors; peer review; publishing; students
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2023.08.007
  19. Nat Methods. 2023 Sep 14.
    Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses.
    Christopher Schmied, Michael S Nelson, Sergiy Avilov, Gert-Jan Bakker, Cristina Bertocchi, Johanna Bischof, Ulrike Boehm, Jan Brocher, Mariana T Carvalho, Catalin Chiritescu, Jana Christopher, Beth A Cimini, Eduardo Conde-Sousa, Michael Ebner, Rupert Ecker, Kevin Eliceiri, Julia Fernandez-Rodriguez, Nathalie Gaudreault, Laurent Gelman, David Grunwald, Tingting Gu, Nadia Halidi, Mathias Hammer, Matthew Hartley, Marie Held, Florian Jug, Varun Kapoor, Ayse Aslihan Koksoy, Judith Lacoste, Sylvia Le Dévédec, Sylvie Le Guyader, Penghuan Liu, Gabriel G Martins, Aastha Mathur, Kota Miura, Paula Montero Llopis, Roland Nitschke, Alison North, Adam C Parslow, Alex Payne-Dwyer, Laure Plantard, Rizwan Ali, Britta Schroth-Diez, Lucas Schütz, Ryan T Scott, Arne Seitz, Olaf Selchow, Ved P Sharma, Martin Spitaler, Sathya Srinivasan, Caterina Strambio-De-Castillia, Douglas Taatjes, Christian Tischer, Helena Klara Jambor.
      Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However, for scientists wishing to publish obtained images and image-analysis results, there are currently no unified guidelines for best practices. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here, we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and describing image analyses for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability and reporting image-analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby to heighten the quality and explanatory power of microscopy data.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-023-01987-9
  20. BMJ. 2023 Sep 15. 382 p2115
    When I use a word . . . The ambiguity of "work" in the ICMJE recommendations on publishing in medical journals.
    Jeffrey K Aronson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2115
  21. Stem Cell Reports. 2023 Sep 12. pii: S2213-6711(23)00309-0. [Epub ahead of print]18(9): 1898-1898.e1
    SnapShot: Reporting practices for publishing results with human PSCs and tissue stem cells.
    ISSCR Task Force for Basic Research Standards. Electronic address: tludwig@wicell.org
      This checklist is intended to help scientists, reviewers, and editors prepare and assess manuscripts for inclusion of critical details relevant to work with pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) and tissue stem cells (TSCs) with the goal of increasing the rigor and reproducibility of research through reporting. It is essential that any published paper includes detailed information on the following parameters to increase the transparency of the experimental details and ensure that the published results are reproducible. For additional details on the recommendations, please see the specific sections of the ISSCR's Standards for Human Stem Cell Use in Research referenced in the checklist (https://www.isscr.org/standards-document). All sections apply to PSCs and TSCs unless otherwise noted. To view this SnapShot, open or download the PDF.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2023.08.010
  22. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2023 ;14(2): 2254118
    Data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field: An international survey of trauma researchers.
    Krithika Prakash, Nancy Kassam-Adams, Lonneke I M Lenferink, Talya Greene.
       BACKGROUND: The FAIR data principles aim to make scientific data more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. In the field of traumatic stress research, FAIR data practices can help accelerate scientific advances to improve clinical practice and can reduce participant burden. Previous studies have identified factors that influence data sharing and re-use among scientists, such as normative pressure, perceived career benefit, scholarly altruism, and availability of data repositories. No prior study has examined researcher views and practices regarding data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field.
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives and practices of traumatic stress researchers around the world concerning data sharing, re-use, and the implementation of FAIR data principles in order to inform development of a FAIR Data Toolkit for traumatic stress researchers.
    METHOD: A total of 222 researchers from 28 countries participated in an online survey available in seven languages, assessing their views on data sharing and re-use, current practices, and potential facilitators and barriers to adopting FAIR data principles.
    RESULTS: The majority of participants held a positive outlook towards data sharing and re-use, endorsing strong scholarly altruism, ethical considerations supporting data sharing, and perceiving data re-use as advantageous for improving research quality and advancing the field. Results were largely consistent with prior surveys of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. A significant proportion of respondents reported instances of data sharing and re-use, but gold standard practices such as formally depositing data in established repositories were reported as infrequent. The study identifies potential barriers such as time constraints, funding, and familiarity with FAIR principles.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results carry crucial implications for promoting change and devising a FAIR Data Toolkit tailored for traumatic stress researchers, emphasizing aspects such as study planning, data preservation, metadata standardization, endorsing data re-use, and establishing metrics to assess scientific and societal impact.
    Keywords:  Datos FAIR; FAIR data; FAIR数据; data re-use; data sharing; intercambio de datos; investigación en estrés traumático; perspectiva de investigadores; prácticas de investigación; research practices; researcher views; reutilización de datos; traumatic stress research; 创伤应激研究; 数据共享; 数据重用; 研究实践; 研究者观点
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2023.2254118
  23. Semin Ophthalmol. 2023 Sep 15. 1-5
    Readership Awareness Series - Paper 7: An Overview of Impact Factor and Other Scientometrics.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2023.2259180
  24. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(9): e0291627
    The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.
    Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins.
       BACKGROUND: Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.
    METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).
    RESULTS: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).
    CONCLUSIONS: Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291627
  25. EMBO Rep. 2023 Sep 15. e57887
    How to avoid mistakes in science publications.
    Fiona M Watt.
      The key to reducing errors in science is collaboration between all practitioners-researchers, funders and editors-through a shared motivation to nurture scientists and promote discovery.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202357887
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.