bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–01–28
thirty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers.
  2. Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers.
  3. [Translated article] Identity crisis in scientific research? More than 10,000 scientific articles withdrawn in 2023: a sad record...
  4. Unethical studies on Chinese minority groups are being retracted - but not fast enough, critics say.
  5. Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices.
  6. Ethical and respectful debate in scientific publishing.
  7. Open-access publications: a double-edged sword for critical care researchers in lowand middle-income countries.
  8. Entering the era of artificial intelligence (AI) in publishing.
  9. Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review.
  10. Artificial intelligence and the scientific writing of non-native English speakers.
  11. Conservation action should come before publication.
  12. Hail the AI journal editor.
  13. Why we publish papers reporting findings we may not believe.
  14. ESR Journals editors' joint statement on Guidelines for the Use of Large Language Models by Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
  15. Addressing the Pervasive Issue of Predatory Journals and Conferences: An Indian Researcher's Perspective.
  16. From master's thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process.
  17. Respectful and Inclusive Language in Scholarly Writing.
  18. Against Over-reliance on PRISMA Guidelines for Meta-analytical Studies.
  19. How I learnt to write research papers as a non-native English speaker.
  20. Video manuscripts: a new way to share your work!
  21. The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct.
  22. Writing in international journals is getting easier.
  23. Multicenter Observational Studies: Understanding the Basics of Data Sharing and Data User Agreements.
  24. Publishing in a Medical Journal: insights from successive Editors-in-chief of JNC.
  25. Journal selection guide for radiology case reports.
  26. Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners.
  27. Moving forward while looking back: Reflections on the history and future of the journal Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology.
  28. Inaugural editorial: Rehabilitation Psychology.
  29. Scholarly discourse: Letters to the Editor.
  30. Over a decade as editor-in-chief at progress in cardiovascular diseases.
  31. Criteria to be an author of a manuscript: Time to revisit the ICMJE criteria and CRediT.
  32. How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers.
  1. Nature. 2024 Jan 24.
    Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers.
    Max Kozlov.
      
    Keywords:  Institutions; Publishing; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00202-9
  2. Science. 2024 Jan 26. 383(6681): 356
    Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Years after whistleblowers questioned nearly 300 papers, journals are slow to respond.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado2400
  3. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2024 Jan 18. pii: S1888-4415(24)00041-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    [Translated article] Identity crisis in scientific research? More than 10,000 scientific articles withdrawn in 2023: a sad record...
    Javier Vaquero Martín.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2024.01.015
  4. Nature. 2024 Jan;625(7996): 650-654
    Unethical studies on Chinese minority groups are being retracted - but not fast enough, critics say.
    Dyani Lewis.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00170-0
  5. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Jan 23. 30(1): 1
    Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices.
    Bor Luen Tang.
      A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.
    Keywords:  Disclosure; Research misconduct; Retraction; Retraction notice
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00468-2
  6. Australas Psychiatry. 2024 Feb;32(1): 5-7
    Ethical and respectful debate in scientific publishing.
    Vlasios Brakoulias, Gin S Malhi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562231226145
  7. Crit Care Sci. 2023 Oct-Dec;35(4):pii: S2965-27742023000400342. [Epub ahead of print]35(4): 342-344
    Open-access publications: a double-edged sword for critical care researchers in lowand middle-income countries.
    Antonio Paulo Nassar, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Felipe Dal-Pizzol, Jorge Ibrain Figueira Salluh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230263-en
  8. S Afr J Sports Med. 2023 ;35(1): v35i1a15511
    Entering the era of artificial intelligence (AI) in publishing.
    Mike Lambert.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17159/2078-516X/2023/v35i1a15511
  9. Clin Pract. 2023 Dec 30. 14(1): 89-105
    Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review.
    Jing Miao, Charat Thongprayoon, Supawadee Suppadungsuk, Oscar A Garcia Valencia, Fawad Qureshi, Wisit Cheungpasitporn.
      The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has greatly propelled progress across various sectors including the field of nephrology academia. However, this advancement has also given rise to ethical challenges, notably in scholarly writing. AI's capacity to automate labor-intensive tasks like literature reviews and data analysis has created opportunities for unethical practices, with scholars incorporating AI-generated text into their manuscripts, potentially undermining academic integrity. This situation gives rise to a range of ethical dilemmas that not only question the authenticity of contemporary academic endeavors but also challenge the credibility of the peer-review process and the integrity of editorial oversight. Instances of this misconduct are highlighted, spanning from lesser-known journals to reputable ones, and even infiltrating graduate theses and grant applications. This subtle AI intrusion hints at a systemic vulnerability within the academic publishing domain, exacerbated by the publish-or-perish mentality. The solutions aimed at mitigating the unethical employment of AI in academia include the adoption of sophisticated AI-driven plagiarism detection systems, a robust augmentation of the peer-review process with an "AI scrutiny" phase, comprehensive training for academics on ethical AI usage, and the promotion of a culture of transparency that acknowledges AI's role in research. This review underscores the pressing need for collaborative efforts among academic nephrology institutions to foster an environment of ethical AI application, thus preserving the esteemed academic integrity in the face of rapid technological advancements. It also makes a plea for rigorous research to assess the extent of AI's involvement in the academic literature, evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced plagiarism detection tools, and understand the long-term consequences of AI utilization on academic integrity. An example framework has been proposed to outline a comprehensive approach to integrating AI into Nephrology academic writing and peer review. Using proactive initiatives and rigorous evaluations, a harmonious environment that harnesses AI's capabilities while upholding stringent academic standards can be envisioned.
    Keywords:  AI-enhanced plagiarism detection; academic integrity and AI; artificial intelligence in academia; ethical dilemmas in scholarly writing; nephrology research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14010008
  10. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2024 ;pii: S0104-42302024000200300. [Epub ahead of print]70(2): e20231291
    Artificial intelligence and the scientific writing of non-native English speakers.
    Hinpetch Daungsupawong, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20231291
  11. Curr Biol. 2024 Jan 22. pii: S0960-9822(23)01639-1. [Epub ahead of print]34(2): R49-R50
    Conservation action should come before publication.
    Piero Genovesi, Lucilla Carnevali, Benjamin D Hoffmann, Andrea Monaco, Helen E Roy, Daniel Simberloff.
      With regard to the recent discovery of the red imported fire ant in Sicily (Menchetti et al. 2023), Genovesi et al. highlight the delay in communicating the observation and call on the scientific communities, scientific journals, and local authorities to ensure that new invasive alien species records are immediately reported for enhancing action.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.11.054
  12. Nat Biomed Eng. 2024 Jan;8(1): 1-2
    Hail the AI journal editor.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-024-01176-9
  13. Cortex. 2024 Jan 14. pii: S0010-9452(24)00002-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Why we publish papers reporting findings we may not believe.
    Sergio Della Sala, Jordan Grafman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2024.01.002
  14. Insights Imaging. 2024 Jan 24. 15(1): 18
    ESR Journals editors' joint statement on Guidelines for the Use of Large Language Models by Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
    Bernd Hamm, Luis Marti-Bonmati, Francesco Sardanelli.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01600-9
  15. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2024 Jan-Dec;11:11 23821205241227286
    Addressing the Pervasive Issue of Predatory Journals and Conferences: An Indian Researcher's Perspective.
    Poulami Roy, Amogh Verma, Novonil Deb.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241227286
  16. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jan 20. 24(1): 75
    From master's thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process.
    Maria Björklund, Ramin Massoumi, Bodil Ohlsson.
       BACKGROUND: Medical student master's theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master's theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process.
    METHODS: A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process.
    RESULTS: We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019-2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus.
    CONCLUSION: A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.
    Keywords:  Learning experience; Master’s theses; Publication process; Research publications; Student performance; Student publishing; Supervisors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05060-7
  17. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2024 Jan 27.
    Respectful and Inclusive Language in Scholarly Writing.
    Melissa D Avery, Linda Hunter, Ira Kantrowitz-Gordon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13611
  18. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2024 Jan 19. 15(1):
    Against Over-reliance on PRISMA Guidelines for Meta-analytical Studies.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly.
      The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem-it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10518
  19. Nature. 2024 Jan 25.
    How I learnt to write research papers as a non-native English speaker.
    Nuwan Bandara.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00218-1
  20. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2024 Feb 01. 262(2): 167
    Video manuscripts: a new way to share your work!
    Sarah E Wright.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.262.2.167
  21. Account Res. 2024 Jan 24. 1-9
    The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct.
    Rafael Dal-Ré, Ana Marušić.
      Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.
    Keywords:  European code of research integrity; Research misconduct; definition; fraud; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2306538
  22. J Rehabil Med. 2024 Jan 22. 56 jrm39905
    Writing in international journals is getting easier.
    Henk Stam, Kristian Borg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.39905
  23. J Neuroophthalmol. 2024 Jan 26.
    Multicenter Observational Studies: Understanding the Basics of Data Sharing and Data User Agreements.
    John J Chen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/WNO.0000000000002086
  24. J Nucl Cardiol. 2023 Dec;pii: S1071-3581(24)00161-2. [Epub ahead of print]30(6): 2259-2260
    Publishing in a Medical Journal: insights from successive Editors-in-chief of JNC.
    Ahmed Tawakol.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-023-03380-7
  25. Clin Imaging. 2024 Jan 15. pii: S0899-7071(24)00014-7. [Epub ahead of print]107 110084
    Journal selection guide for radiology case reports.
    Gokce Belge Bilgin, Cem Bilgin, Hassan Kobeissi, Sherief Ghozy, Yigit Can Senol, Mohamed Sobhi Jabal, Ramanathan Kadirvel, Waleed Brinjikji, David F Kallmes.
      Case reports and interesting images are valuable contributions to the radiology literature as they provide unique insights into uncommon conditions and rare presentations. Additionally, they serve as a rapidly expanding live image atlas and, therefore, can help radiologists to improve their diagnostics skills. However, due to high rejection rates and an increasing number of predatory publishers, publishing radiology case reports remains a daunting task for junior researchers. To overcome these challenges and ensure timely dissemination of their research findings, authors should consider several factors when selecting a target journal for case report publications. In this primer, we have summarized key considerations in journal selection and highlighted reputable journals that welcome radiology case reports.
    Keywords:  Case report; Education; Interesting image
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110084
  26. ScientificWorldJournal. 2024 ;2024 7822269
    Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners.
    Ayodeji Amobonye, Japareng Lalung, Gift Mheta, Santhosh Pillai.
      Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7822269
  27. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2024 Feb;32(1): 1-2
    Moving forward while looking back: Reflections on the history and future of the journal Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology.
    Kelly E Dunn.
      In this editorial, the incoming editor for Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (ECP) reflects on the history and future of the journal. The author looks forward to working together with the American Psychological Association publishing community and ECP authors, reviewers, and board members as they navigate changes to their publishing policies and procedures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000694
  28. Rehabil Psychol. 2024 Feb;69(1): 1-3
    Inaugural editorial: Rehabilitation Psychology.
    Paul B Perrin, Anna L Kratz.
      For over 50 years, Rehabilitation Psychology has helped highlight important issues experienced by the disability community. We are extremely excited to continue that legacy in our role as the journal's first dual editors-in-chief, and we look forward to working with our associate editors, Kathleen Bogart and Daniel Klyce, our editorial fellows, and our large editorial board and ad hoc reviewer pool. In our tenure as the journal's editors, we will focus heavily on (a) providing exceptional service, (b) emphasizing diversity and disability identity, (c) broadening the scope of the field, (d) promoting high-quality research standards, and (e) looking ahead. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000539
  29. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2024 Jan 23.
    Scholarly discourse: Letters to the Editor.
    Susan Gennaro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12956
  30. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2024 Jan 24. pii: S0033-0620(24)00019-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Over a decade as editor-in-chief at progress in cardiovascular diseases.
    Carl J Lavie.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2024.01.019
  31. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Oct-Dec;39(4):39(4): 674-675
    Criteria to be an author of a manuscript: Time to revisit the ICMJE criteria and CRediT.
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal, Rudrashish Haldar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_175_22
  32. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(1): e0297034
    How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers.
    Frances Shiely, Kerrie Gallagher, Seán R Millar.
       OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.
    RESULTS: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order.
    CONCLUSION: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297034
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.