bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒09‒24
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards.
  2. The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.
  3. Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review.
  4. Teaching peer reviewing to medical students through authentic peer reviews: how to build the next generation of scholars.
  5. Constructive correction.
  6. Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists.
  7. India: neutralizing temptation by predatory journals.
  8. Ponderings on Peer Review: Part 3. Grant Critiques.
  9. When authors play the predatory journals' own game.
  10. Disrupting the "Animal Farm" of scientific research and publishing: AI as an impartial sidekick.
  11. The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers.
  12. OpenAI's ChatGPT and Its Potential Impact on Narrative and Scientific Writing in Nephrology.
  13. The use of artificial intelligence tools in publishing.
  14. AI Technology in Scientific Publishing and in PTJ.
  15. ChatGPT for scientific community: Boon or bane?
  16. Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review.
  17. Presentation and publication skills: Publication governance and pitfalls to avoid.
  18. Peer review and scientific publication at a crossroads.
  19. Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads: Call for Research for the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
  20. Peer review chair report: Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference 2023 peer review process.
  21. Minimum Quality of Figures for Manuscripts for a Dermatology Journal.
  1. Lab Anim. 2023 Sep 20. 236772231181658
    Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards.
    Junmin Song, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Jae Il Shin, John Pa Ioannidis.
      The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.
    Keywords:  ARRIVE; animal research reporting in vivo experiments; animal study; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231181658
  2. Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 20. 12(1): 168
    The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.
    Caitlin J Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P Zeegers.
      BACKGROUND: Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.METHODS: Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.
    RESULTS: Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.
    CONCLUSION: The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.
    Keywords:  Publication ethics; Research integrity; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02316-z
  3. Eur Spine J. 2023 Sep 19.
    Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review.
    Jordan J Levett, Lior M Elkaim, Naif M Alotaibi, Michael H Weber, Nicolas Dea, Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr.
      PURPOSE: The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.METHODS: A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.
    RESULTS: Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).
    CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.
    Keywords:  Data error; Ethics; Fraud; Plagiarism; Publication retraction; Spine surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07927-7
  4. Can Med Educ J. 2023 09;14(4): 129-136
    Teaching peer reviewing to medical students through authentic peer reviews: how to build the next generation of scholars.
    Cindy Schmidt, Grace Thiel, Celeste Murtha.
      Implication Statement: The peer review process is a critical step in producing sound scientific literature, traditionally conducted by professionals well-established in their field. It is uncommon for students, even at the graduate level, to contribute. Faculty created a novel course in which 18 medical students (nine per year) delivered peer reviews to the Canadian Medical Education Journal (CMEJ). The positive feedback and competency gained is described in the students' Letter to the Editor. While this course was initially created to benefit students, it has also helped to address a known deficit in peer reviewers.Énoncé des implications de la recherche: L'évaluation par les pairs est une étape essentielle de la production d'une littérature scientifique de bonne qualité. Traditionnellement faite par des professionnels confirmés dans leur domaine de compétences, il est rare que les étudiants, même ceux des cycles supérieurs, participent aux comités de lecture. Un cours novateur a permis à 18 étudiants en médecine (9 par année) de réaliser des évaluations par les pairs pour la Revue canadienne de l'éducation médicale (CMEJ). Les commentaires positifs et les compétences acquises sont décrits dans une lettre des étudiants à l'éditeur. Bien qu'à l'origine ce cours ait été créé pour profiter aux étudiants, il a également contribué à combler un déficit notoire de pairs évaluateurs.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.76489
  5. EMBO Rep. 2023 Sep 21. e58155
    Constructive correction.
    Bernd Pulverer.
      A fundamental tenet of the scientific process is that science is self-correcting. Efficient correction of the scientific literature requires a more nuanced set of policies and tools that lower the bar to author self-correction. The community has to embrace correction as a signal of scholarly quality.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202358155
  6. Account Res. 2023 Sep 22.
    Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists.
    Gengyan Tang, Jingyu Peng.
      The lists of questionable journals are regarded a policy or tool to ensure research quality and integrity. However, due to their lack of clear criteria, they remain highly debated. Taking a typological perspective, we assess the reasonableness of the lists of questionable journals by examining how well it reflects the differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups when categorizing and labeling them, and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists released by the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an example, we grouped listed journals based on warning levels and years. Subsequently, we compared them in groups to determine if there are differences in key academic indicators among different warning categories, thereby evaluating the reasonableness of the warning journal list. Our research findings suggest that Early Warning Journal Lists may have employed inconsistent criteria when assigning warning levels. Variations in the degrees of differences or the absence of differences were observed among groups across different key academic indicators. Additionally, citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator might not have been treated as grouping criteria in the Early Warning Journal Lists, yet this lack of detailed explanation from the creators is evident. This highlights the need for a more scientific and meticulous assessment of the lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing detailed standards and data. Furthermore, our study offers recommendations for future formulation of lists of questionable journals by various institutions.
    Keywords:  Questionable journals; academic journals; early warning journal lists; quality assurance; research evaluation; research integrity; research policy; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2261846
  7. Nature. 2023 Sep;621(7979): 474
    India: neutralizing temptation by predatory journals.
    Pitchai Balakumar, Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh.
      
    Keywords:  Education; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02912-y
  8. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Sep 18.
    Ponderings on Peer Review: Part 3. Grant Critiques.
    Douglas R Seals.
      In Part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed basic principles of scientific peer review. In Part 2, I focused specifically on the peer review of manuscripts. Here in Part 3, I complete the Perspective by sharing my thoughts on peer review of grant applications. I begin by emphasizing the goals of grant peer review and then describe the 2-stage organizational structure involved. The objective of stage 1 of the process is to establish the scientific merit of the grant proposal. For that phase, I discuss grant review panels, reviewer qualifications and responsibilities, how reviewers are identified and selected, pre-review meeting activities, activities during the review panel meeting, grant review criteria and scoring scales, and post-meeting activities. I also note 2 mechanisms that provide "pre-peer review" advice and recommendations for grant applications under development. I then describe the events associated with stage 2 of the peer review process in which grant funding agencies consider application merit scores (from stage 1) along with other factors including their research mission, priority areas of investigation, and available funds. Tips for early-career reviewers are discussed next and include questions to ask before accepting a review assignment, the importance of following reviewer guidelines, considerations when working through applications, issues involved in writing the critique, scoring the application, and how to approach evaluating resubmitted grant applications. Finally, I identify options for gaining skills and experience in peer review of grant proposals.
    Keywords:  career development; grant applications; peer review; professional skills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00175.2023
  9. Nature. 2023 Sep;621(7979): 474
    When authors play the predatory journals' own game.
    Jeremiah Joven Joaquin, Hazel T Biana.
      
    Keywords:  Developing world; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02911-z
  10. Crit Care. 2023 Sep 22. 27(1): 365
    Disrupting the "Animal Farm" of scientific research and publishing: AI as an impartial sidekick.
    Michele Salvagno, Fabio Silvio Taccone.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04647-8
  11. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2023 ;pii: S0104-42302023000900626. [Epub ahead of print]69(9): e20230560
    The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers.
    Auro Del Giglio, Mateus Uerlei Pereira da Costa.
      OBJECTIVE: Scientific writing in English is a daunting task for non-native English speakers. The challenges of writing in a foreign language are evident in the scientific literature where texts by non-native English-speaking scientists tend to be less clear and succinct, contain grammatical errors, and are often rejected by prestigious journals.METHODS: We conducted a non-systematic review of the most recent literature using the terms "Artificial Intelligence," "Scientific Writing," and "Non-English Speaking" to create a narrative review.
    RESULTS: Artificial intelligence can be a solution to improve scientific writing, especially for non-native English-speaking scientists. Artificial intelligence can assist in the search for pertinent scientific papers, generate summaries, and help with the writing of different sections of the manuscript, including the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Artificial intelligence-based programs can correct grammatical errors and improve writing style, both of which are particularly helpful for non-native English speakers. Two artificial intelligence programs that can help with the search for pertinent scientific papers on the internet are Elicit and ResearchRabbit. Scispace Copilot can be used to summarize the retrieved reference. The artificial intelligence software programs such as Grammarly and Paperpal can correct grammatical and spelling errors, while ChatGPT can also restructure sentences and paragraphs, reword text, and suggest appropriate words and phrases.
    CONCLUSION: Overall, artificial intelligence can be an effective tool to improve the clarity, style, and coherence of scientific writing, helping non-native English-speaking scientists to communicate their research more effectively.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230560
  12. Am J Kidney Dis. 2023 Sep 21. pii: S0272-6386(23)00707-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    OpenAI's ChatGPT and Its Potential Impact on Narrative and Scientific Writing in Nephrology.
    John T Daugirdas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2023.04.006
  13. Psychophysiology. 2023 Sep 18. e14441
    The use of artificial intelligence tools in publishing.
    Monica Fabiani, Andreas Keil, Lisa Gatzke-Kopp.
      
    Keywords:  AI generated content; artificial intelligence; editorial policies; generative AI; psychophysiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14441
  14. Phys Ther. 2023 Sep 01. pii: pzad104. [Epub ahead of print]103(9):
    AI Technology in Scientific Publishing and in PTJ.
    Alan M Jette.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad104
  15. Med J Armed Forces India. 2023 Sep-Oct;79(5):79(5): 498-499
    ChatGPT for scientific community: Boon or bane?
    Ankur Jain.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2023.06.009
  16. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Sep 21. 8(1): 12
    Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review.
    Anna Nuechterlein, Tanya Barretto, Alaa Yehia, Judy Illes.
      BACKGROUND: Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012-2022) on their quality of life.METHODS: An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.
    RESULTS: We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias.
    Keywords:  Editorial review; Inclusivity; Peer review; Research integrity; Spinal cord injury
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00138-0
  17. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2023 Oct;pii: S2405-4577(23)00154-7. [Epub ahead of print]57 5-9
    Presentation and publication skills: Publication governance and pitfalls to avoid.
    Dileep N Lobo, George Grimble, Nathalie Delzenne, Nicolaas E Deutz.
      There are several pitfalls in the publication process that researchers can fall victim to, and these can occur knowingly or unknowingly. Although some of these errors may have occurred in good faith, disregard of publication governance is a dangerous practice and could bring authors and their co-authors into disrepute. We highlight some of these potential pitfalls, acquaint the reader with some rules that need to be adhered to in research and publishing, and help the reader learn how to avoid tripping-up on the road to publication.
    Keywords:  Checklists; Errors; Fraud; Pitfalls; Publication; Retraction; Spin
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.06.010
  18. BMJ. 2023 Sep 22. 382 p1992
    Peer review and scientific publication at a crossroads.
    John P A Ioannidis, Michael Berkwits, Annette Flanagin, Theodora Bloom.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1992
  19. JAMA. 2023 Sep 22.
    Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads: Call for Research for the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
    John P A Ioannidis, Michael Berkwits, Annette Flanagin, Theodora Bloom.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.17607
  20. J Chiropr Educ. 2023 Sep 18.
    Peer review chair report: Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference 2023 peer review process.
    Claire Johnson.
      OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the methods used and feedback from reviewers about the peer review process for the 2023 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference (ACC-RAC).METHODS: After the peer review process was complete, the 2023 ACC-RAC peer review committee members were invited to provide feedback through an anonymous electronic form. The survey included a Likert scale to rate items about the peer review process and an option for open-ended comments.
    RESULTS: Of the 166 peer reviewers, 77 (46%) completed the survey. The reviewers represented 9 countries, with the greatest number from North America. The majority (95%) of respondents rated the process of peer review in topic groups as good to excellent, and the majority (92%) of respondents rated the overall 2023 peer review process as good to excellent. The critical comments that were submitted are addressed in this report.
    CONCLUSION: Overall, peer reviewer satisfaction with the process used for the 2023 ACC-RAC was high. We will include information from this report as part of the continuous quality improvement of peer review process, an important part of improving chiropractic education, research, and scholarly activities.
    Keywords:  Chiropractic; Congress [Publication Type]; Education; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-20
  21. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Sep-Oct;14(5):14(5): 717-718
    Minimum Quality of Figures for Manuscripts for a Dermatology Journal.
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.idoj_563_22
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒09‒25 at 13:37.