bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–10–01
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Science. 2023 Sep 29. 381(6665): 1377
      Science is fortunate that so many authors seek to publish with us. We shoulder enormous responsibility from both our outsized influence on research across many fields and from the journal's impact on the careers of scientists who publish in our pages. Although there can be some cynicism about the role of highly selective "glam journals," we understand why we are part of conversations that sometimes center around "CNS" (Cell, Nature, Science) periodicals. All three have considerable importance and prominence in the scientific community. But there is a major difference that often gets lost. Whereas Cell and Nature generate revenue for their parent for-profit companies, Elsevier and Springer Nature, Science is published by a nonprofit organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and produces no revenue for shareholders. We don't get the word out about this distinction frequently or overtly enough. It's an important contrast because decisions that we make at Science and AAAS are driven by putting scientists ahead of profit.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk9900
  2. Soc Stud Sci. 2023 Sep 30. 3063127231200274
      Mathematics is often treated as different from other disciplines, since arguments in the field rely on deductive proof rather than empirical evidence as in the natural sciences. A mathematical paper can therefore, at least in principle, be replicated simply by reading it. While this distinction is sometimes taken as the basis to claim that the results in mathematics are therefore certain, mathematicians themselves know that the published literature contains many mistakes. Reading a proof is not easy, and checking whether an argument constitutes a proof is surprisingly difficult. This article uses peer review of submissions to mathematics journals as a site where referees are explicitly concerned with checking whether a paper is correct and therefore could be published. Drawing on 95 qualitative interviews with mathematics journal editors, as well as a collection of more than 100 referee reports and other correspondence from peer review processes, this article establishes that while mathematicians acknowledge that peer review does not guarantee correctness, they still value it. For mathematicians, peer review 'adds a bit of certainty', especially in contrast to papers only submitted to preprint servers such as arXiv. Furthermore, during peer review there can be disagreements not just regarding the importance of a result, but also whether a particular argument constitutes a proof or not (in particular, whether there are substantial gaps in the proof). Finally, the mathematical community is seen as important when it comes to accepting arguments as proofs and assigning certainty to results. Publishing an argument in a peer-reviewed journal is often only the first step in having a result accepted. Results get accepted if they stand the test of time and are used by other mathematicians.
    Keywords:  certainty; error; mathematics; peer review; proofs; replication; scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231200274
  3. J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Sep 28.
      The term qualitative research refers to a family of primarily non-numeric methods for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their day to day lives. Originally developed to study social problems such as poverty, juvenile delinquency, and race relations, qualitative research methods have been used in the health sciences since the 1960s to better understand the socialization of medical professionals and the culture of medical education and practice. More recently, qualitative research has been employed in health services research to address and improve the quality and safety of care. While quantitative researchers generally ask "what" or "how many" questions, qualitative researchers generally ask, "why" or "how"? Publishing qualitative research comes with a number of challenges, among them, manuscript length, unfamiliarity of reviewers with qualitative traditions, and sample sizes that, by design, are difficult to generalize from. In addition, while there is general agreement about the quality of evidence and types of research designs used in quantitative studies, the same is not yet the case for qualitative and mixed methods research although a variety of useful guidelines have recently appeared. From the perspective of journal editors, we raise and offer guidance on three important questions: (1) Is the study under review suitable for this journal? (2) What is the rationale for using qualitative methods to carry out the research? (3) What are editors/reviewers looking for in a qualitative submission? In unpacking the third question, we describe common strategies editors use and challenges that we have encountered in the abstract, background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of qualitative submissions we and our colleagues have reviewed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08361-7
  4. EMBO Rep. 2023 Sep 25. e58127
      Can rethinking editorial assessment reduce subjectivity and transform the way science is communicated?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202358127
  5. Account Res. 2023 Sep 29.
      
    Keywords:  Ombudsperson; ethics; ombudsman; peer-review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2265302
  6. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Sep 25. 38(38): e319
       BACKGROUND: With emergence of chatbots to help authors with scientific writings, editors should have tools to identify artificial intelligence-generated texts. GPTZero is among the first websites that has sought media attention claiming to differentiate machine-generated from human-written texts.
    METHODS: Using 20 text pieces generated by ChatGPT in response to arbitrary questions on various topics in medicine and 30 pieces chosen from previously published medical articles, the performance of GPTZero was assessed.
    RESULTS: GPTZero had a sensitivity of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.85); specificity, 0.90 (0.73-0.98); accuracy, 0.80 (0.66-0.90); and positive and negative likelihood ratios, 6.5 (2.1-19.9) and 0.4 (0.2-0.7), respectively.
    CONCLUSION: GPTZero has a low false-positive (classifying a human-written text as machine-generated) and a high false-negative rate (classifying a machine-generated text as human-written).
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Classification; Journalism; Scientific Writing; Sensitivity and Specificity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e319
  7. Ann Surg Open. 2023 Sep;4(3): e309
      Mini-Abstract ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) technology that has begun to transform academics through its ability to create human-like text. This has raised ethical concerns about its assistance in writing scientific literature. Our aim is to highlight the benefits and risks that this technology may pose to the surgical field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000309
  8. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(9): e0291124
      Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic's impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM-especially in a post-COVID-19 era.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291124
  9. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2023 Sep 26. pii: S1879-7296(23)00105-9. [Epub ahead of print]
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery.
    METHOD: The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis.
    RESULTS: Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022.
    CONCLUSION: The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology.
    Keywords:  EQUATOR; Guidelines; Medical writing; Otorhinolaryngology; Scientific article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2023.09.001
  10. Pediatr Radiol. 2023 Sep 29.
      The positive impact of diversity on health research and outcomes is well-recognised and widely published. Despite this, published evidence shows that at every step of the research pathway, issues of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) arise. There is evidence of a lack of diversity within research teams, in the research questions asked/research participants recruited, on grant review/funding panels, amongst funded researchers and on the editorial boards and reviewer pools of the journals to which results are submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Considering the journal Pediatric Radiology, while its editorial board of 92 members has at least one member affiliated to a country in every region of the world, the majority are in North America (n=52, 57%) and Europe (n=30, 33%) and only two (2%) are affiliated to institutions in a lower middle-income country (LMIC) (India, Nigeria), with one (1%) affiliated to an institution in an upper middle-income country (UMIC) (Peru) and none in a low-income country (LIC). Pediatric Radiology is "…the official journal of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the Asian and Oceanic Society for Pediatric Radiology and the Latin American Society of Pediatric Radiology". However, of the total number of manuscripts submitted for potential publication in the four years 2019 through 2022, only 0.03% were from a LIC and only 7.9% were from a LMIC. Further, the frequency of acceptance of manuscripts from UMIC was seven times higher than that from LMIC (no manuscripts were published from LIC). Increased collaboration is required between researchers across the globe to better understand the barriers to equity in the funding, conduct and publication of research from LIC and LMIC and to identify ways in which we can overcome them together.
    Keywords:  Diversity; Equity; Health research; Inclusion; Research pathway
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05762-y
  11. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 ;16 2733-2743
       Objective: Publication in highly indexed journals is a complicated process that requires research skills, including writing, conceptualizing, and communication skills, to appropriately verbalize the findings. The current study assessed the barriers faced by nursing faculty at Saudi universities in conducting scientific research and publishing in highly indexed journals.
    Methods: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Data were collected through convenience sampling by sending an online questionnaire to faculty members at Saudi universities. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part for the demographic characteristics of staff and another part for the barriers associated with conducting scientific research and the publication process in highly indexed journals. The data was analyzed by SPSS using descriptive statistics as frequencies and percentages and inferential statistics using Chi Square test.
    Results: The study included 152 participants, mainly female (70.4%) aged 30-40 years (73.7%). Most were non-Saudi (90.1%), attended government universities (82.9%), and specialized in Medical & Surgical Nursing (29.6%). Only 3.9% received publishing training, whereas 55.9% had been published in indexed journals. Barriers included difficulties following guidelines, lack of research-writing knowledge, language challenges, and financial constraints. Gender, age, university, qualifications, and training courses influenced these barriers.
    Conclusion: The identified barriers included lack of training, language-related challenges, and work pressures. This study emphasizes the importance of providing support, resources, and training opportunities to overcome these barriers and enhance research productivity in the nursing field.
    Keywords:  Saudi universities; nursing faculty; publishing; scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S429478
  12. Br J Anaesth. 2023 Sep 25. pii: S0007-0912(23)00489-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      The past century, especially the past decade, has seen re-examination and evolution in our views about sex, gender, race, and ethnicity. The British Journal of Anaesthesia is part of an ongoing effort in research and medical publishing, and in health and education more generally, to improve diversity, inclusion, and equity. This editorial highlights the contributions and evolution of the Journal in these areas from its origin until today.
    Keywords:  anaesthesia; diversity; equity; ethnicity; gender; inclusion; race; sex
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2023.08.035
  13. Med J Malaysia. 2023 Sep;78(5): 551-558
      No abstract available.
  14. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2023 Sep 17. pii: S0303-8467(23)00397-9. [Epub ahead of print]234 107981
      
    Keywords:  Case reports; Medical education; Medical publishing; Medical writing; Relevance; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.107981