bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–11–19
eightteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. New Resources to Advance Equity in Academic Publishing.
  2. Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity.
  3. Who should pay for open-access publishing? APC alternatives emerge.
  4. AI writes summaries of preprints in bioRxiv trial.
  5. Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis.
  6. Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
  7. Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons.
  8. 'ChatGPT detector' catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy.
  9. How accurate are the references generated by ChatGPT in internal medicine?
  10. Artificial intelligence, authorship and publication of case reports.
  11. Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools for Biomedical Journal Authors and Reviewers.
  12. Generative AI in scientific publishing: disruptive or destructive?
  13. The potential for graphical abstracts to enhance science communication.
  14. Editorial: On the Writing of a Scientific Review Article.
  15. Open science gathers momentum: Implications for medical and scientific research.
  16. Perspectives of researchers engaging in majority world research to promote diverse and global psychological science.
  17. A snapshot of 100 years of discovery.
  18. No assembly required: Time for stronger, simpler publishing standards for DNA sequences.
  1. Womens Health Issues. 2023 Nov-Dec;33(6):pii: S1049-3867(23)00158-5. [Epub ahead of print]33(6): 567
    New Resources to Advance Equity in Academic Publishing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2023.09.003
  2. Calcif Tissue Int. 2023 Nov 14.
    Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity.
    Haroon Saloojee, John M Pettifor.
      Access to published research has always been difficult for researchers and clinicians in low- and middle-income countries, because of the cost of and lack of access to the relevant publications. The dramatic recent increase in electronic research publications has resulted in a marked improvement in reader access to these publications through their mainly Open Access policies, however the costs of processing of submissions and publication have now become the burden of the researchers wishing to publish, rather than the readers. For many researchers working in LMIC, the Article Processing Charges (APC) are prohibitive, hampering the publication of research being conducted in and relevant to these countries. A number of grant funding agencies and international not-for-profit organizations are trying to address these issues by including funding for article publications in their grants, or by supporting publishing entities by subsiding the cost of publication, but more needs to be done by major journal publishers through markedly reducing the APC being charged to researchers in LMIC for open access facilities.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Journals; Open access; Research publications; Subscription-based journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-023-01151-7
  3. Nature. 2023 Nov;623(7987): 472-473
    Who should pay for open-access publishing? APC alternatives emerge.
    Katharine Sanderson.
      
    Keywords:  Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03506-4
  4. Nature. 2023 Nov 14.
    AI writes summaries of preprints in bioRxiv trial.
    Ewen Callaway.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03545-x
  5. mBio. 2023 Nov 17. e0109123
    Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis.
    Carolina Tropini, B Brett Finlay, Mark Nichter, Melissa K Melby, Jessica L Metcalf, Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, Liping Zhao, Margaret J McFall-Ngai, Naama Geva-Zatorsky, Katherine R Amato, Eduardo A Undurraga, Hendrik N Poinar, Jack A Gilbert.
      There is concern that the time taken to publish academic papers in microbiological science has significantly increased in recent years. While the data do not specifically support this, evidence suggests that editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to perform peer review.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; early career researcher; peer review; peer review crisis; reviewer rewards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01091-23
  6. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 Nov 21. pii: S0735-1097(23)07571-X. [Epub ahead of print]82(21): 2054-2062
    Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
    Peer Review Task Force of the Scientific Publications Committee
      The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; scientific communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056
  7. Surgery. 2023 Nov 10. pii: S0039-6060(23)00720-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons.
    Association of Women Surgeons Publication Committee
       BACKGROUND: A novel Peer Review Academy was developed as a collaborative effort between the Association of Women Surgeons and the journal Surgery to provide formal training in peer review. We aimed to describe the outcomes of this initiative using a mixed methods approach.
    METHODS: We developed a year-long curriculum with monthly online didactic sessions. Women surgical trainee mentees were paired 1:1 with rotating women surgical faculty mentors for 3 formal peer review opportunities. We analyzed pre-course and post-course surveys to evaluate mentee perceptions of the academy and assessed changes in mentee review quality over time with blinded scoring of unedited reviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted upon course completion.
    RESULTS: Ten women surgical faculty mentors and 10 women surgical trainees from across the United States and Canada successfully completed the Peer Review Academy. There were improvements in the mentees' confidence for all domains of peer review evaluated, including overall confidence in peer review, study novelty, study design, analytic approach, and review formatting (all, P ≤ .02). The mean score of peer review quality increased over time (59.2 ± 10.8 vs 76.5 ± 9.4; P = .02). In semi-structured interviews, important elements were emphasized across the Innovation, Implementation Process, and Individuals Domains, including the values of (1) a comprehensive approach to formal peer review education; (2) mentoring relationships between women faculty and resident surgeons; and (3) increasing diversity in the scientific peer review process.
    CONCLUSION: Our novel Peer Review Academy was feasible on a national scale, resulting in significant qualitative and quantitative improvements in women surgical trainee skillsets, and has the potential to grow and diversify the existing peer review pool.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.050
  8. Nature. 2023 Nov 06.
    'ChatGPT detector' catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy.
    McKenzie Prillaman.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03479-4
  9. Intern Emerg Med. 2023 Nov 18.
    How accurate are the references generated by ChatGPT in internal medicine?
    Paul Sebo.
      
    Keywords:  AI; Accuracy; ChatGPT; Fake; Journal; Publication; Reference
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03484-5
  10. Case Rep Womens Health. 2023 Sep;39 e00553
    Artificial intelligence, authorship and publication of case reports.
    Nancy Phillips, Margaret Rees.
      
    Keywords:  AI; Artificial intelligence; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crwh.2023.e00553
  11. Arthroscopy. 2023 Nov 09. pii: S0749-8063(23)00881-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools for Biomedical Journal Authors and Reviewers.
    James H Lubowitz.
      Authors are permitted to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM) to improve the readability of their own writing. However, authors must review and edit the output resulting from generative AI and are accountable for the accuracy of their publications. AI may not be listed, or cited, as an author. Authors who use AI in the scientific writing process must disclose the use of AI LLM in their manuscript including a description of the tool and reason for use. Authors are not permitted to use AI to create or alter images or videos, (unless this is part of the research design in which case a statement is required explaining what was created or altered, with what tools, how, and for what reason). Finally, AI use by reviewers and editors is not permitted and violates confidentiality and proprietary rights and may breach data privacy rights.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.037
  12. Nat Rev Urol. 2023 Nov 15.
    Generative AI in scientific publishing: disruptive or destructive?
    Riccardo Bertolo, Alessandro Antonelli.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-023-00836-w
  13. Transl Behav Med. 2023 Nov 15. pii: ibad069. [Epub ahead of print]
    The potential for graphical abstracts to enhance science communication.
    Rebecca A Krukowski, Carly M Goldstein.
      Science communication, including formats such as podcasts, news interviews, or graphical abstracts, can contribute to the acceleration of translational research by improving knowledge transfer to patient, policymaker, and practitioner communities. In particular, graphical abstracts, which are optional for articles published in Translational Behavioral Medicine as well as many other journals, are created by authors of scientific articles or by editorial staff to visually present a study's design, findings, and implications, to improve comprehension among non-academic audiences. The use of graphical abstracts in scientific journals has increased in the past 10-15 years; however, most scientists are not trained in how to develop them, which presents a challenge for creating graphical abstracts that engage the public. In this article, the authors describe graphical abstracts and offer suggestions for their construction based on the extant literature. Specifically, graphical abstracts should use a solid background, employ an easily readable font, combine visuals with words, convey only the essential study design information and 1-3 "take-home" points, have a clear organizational structure, contain restrained and accessible use of color, use single-color icons, communicate ways to access the full-text article, and include the contact information for the lead author. Authors should obtain feedback on graphical abstract drafts prior to dissemination. There is emerging research on the benefits of graphical abstracts in terms of impact and engagement; however, it will be essential for future research to determine how to optimize the design of graphical abstracts, in order to engage patient, policymaker, and practitioner communities in improving behavioral health.
    Keywords:  access to information; communications media; health communication; information dissemination; public health; publications; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad069
  14. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2023 Nov 13. PP
    Editorial: On the Writing of a Scientific Review Article.
    Bin He.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/RBME.2023.3332164
  15. J Spinal Cord Med. 2023 Nov;46(6): 873-874
    Open science gathers momentum: Implications for medical and scientific research.
    Carolann Murphy, Florian P Thomas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2023.2270350
  16. Am Psychol. 2023 Nov 16.
    Perspectives of researchers engaging in majority world research to promote diverse and global psychological science.
    Vaishali V Raval, Philip Baiden, Graciela Espinosa-Hernandez, Lucía Magis-Weinberg, Amanda J Nguyen, Peter F Titzmann, Yao Zheng.
      Journal analyses have documented the historical neglect of research pertaining to the Majority World in psychological science, and the need for inclusivity is clearly articulated to ensure a science that is comprehensive and globally applicable. However, no systematic efforts have explored the perspectives of researchers working with Majority World communities regarding the challenges they experience in conducting and disseminating research and ways to address them. Our aim was to explore these challenges from the perspective of these researchers using an embedded mixed-methods design. Based on responses of 232 researchers who engage in psychological research with Majority World communities (68.1% from Africa, Asia, or Latin America, remaining from the Minority World), we identified challenges in three areas: (a) stemming from an inherent bias against Majority World research, (b) experienced by all researchers, which nonetheless are heightened for those engaging in research with Majority World populations, and (c) specific to researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. Based on the findings, we recommend journal editorial teams and funding agencies: (a) acknowledge and address the bias inherent in the publication and funding process, (b) recruit editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Majority World, (c) train editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Minority World to thoughtfully evaluate Majority World research, and (d) provide resources for researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001229
  17. J Exp Biol. 2023 11 15. pii: jeb246869. [Epub ahead of print]226(22):
    A snapshot of 100 years of discovery.
    Kathryn Knight.
      With a century of literature behind Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB) in 2023, I look at some of the extraordinary papers contained within its archive. From publishing Nobel Prize-inspiring discoveries to founding fields and solving long-standing mysteries, the journal has been at the hub of experimental biology for 10 decades, leading the way and shining a light on the physiology of many remarkable animal species. In this Perspective, I highlight some of the key players in the field, summarise their seminal works and consider their long-term impact as JEB embarks on its next 100 years.
    Keywords:  History; JEB Centenary; Literature
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.246869
  18. PLoS Biol. 2023 Nov;21(11): e3002376
    No assembly required: Time for stronger, simpler publishing standards for DNA sequences.
    B W Thuronyi, Erika A DeBenedictis, Jeffrey E Barrick.
      Uniformly accessible DNA sequences are needed to improve experimental reproducibility and automation. Rather than descriptions of how engineered DNA is assembled, publishers should require complete and empirically validated sequences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002376
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.