bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒02‒04
eleven papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.
  2. Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded (ABCDEF) publishing.
  3. Sales, Readers, or Advancing the Science: Why Does a Journal Exist?
  4. Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism.
  5. Recognition and reward in peer review: The ReviewerCredits vision.
  6. Reflection over compliance: Critiquing mandatory data sharing policies for qualitative research.
  7. Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.
  8. Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: a meta-research study.
  9. Call on the academic publishing industry to provide equitable access to their journals.
  10. Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.
  11. Erratum to "The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals".
  1. R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Jan;11(1): 231056
    Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.
    David Robert Grimes.
      The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.
    Keywords:  metaresearch; metascience; publication bias; publish or perish; research integrity; research waste
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231056
  2. F1000Res. 2023 ;12 877
    Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded (ABCDEF) publishing.
    Taiki Oka, Kaito Takashima, Kohei Ueda, Yuki Mori, Kyoshiro Sasaki, Hiro Taiyo Hamada, Masahito Yamagata, Yuki Yamada.
      Scientists write research articles, process ethics reviews, evaluate proposals and research, and seek funding. Several strategies have been proposed to optimize these operations and to decentralize access to research resources and opportunities. For instance, we previously proposed the trinity review method, combining registered reports with financing and research ethics assessments. However, previously proposed systems have a number of shortcomings, including how to implement them, e.g., who manages them, how incentives for reviewers are paid, etc. Various solutions have been proposed to address these issues, employing methods based on blockchain technologies, called "decentralized science (DeSci)". Decentralized approaches that exploit these developments offer potentially profound improvements to the troubled scientific ecosystem. Here, we propose a system that integrates ethics reviews, peer reviews, and funding in a decentralized manner, based on Web3 technology. This new method, named ABCDEF publishing, would enhance the speed, fairness, and transparency of scientific research and publishing.
    Keywords:  decentralized science; funding; registered reports; reproducibility; scientific ecosystem
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130188.2
  3. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024 Feb;55(2): 51-52
    Sales, Readers, or Advancing the Science: Why Does a Journal Exist?
    Patricia S Yoder-Wise.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20240109-01
  4. BMJ. 2024 01 29. 384 q226
    Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism.
    Andrew M Colman, Tim Stokes, Carolyn Tarrant.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q226
  5. Minerva Cardiol Angiol. 2024 Jan 24.
    Recognition and reward in peer review: The ReviewerCredits vision.
    Sven Fund, Gareth Dyke.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06487-6
  6. J Health Psychol. 2024 Jan 28. 13591053231225903
    Reflection over compliance: Critiquing mandatory data sharing policies for qualitative research.
    Annayah Mb Prosser, Ralph Bagnall, Nina Higson-Sweeney.
      Many journals are moving towards a 'Mandatory Inclusion of Raw Data' (MIRD) model of data sharing, where it is expected that raw data be publicly accessible at article submission. While open data sharing is beneficial for some research topics and methodologies within health psychology, in other cases it may be ethically and epistemologically questionable. Here, we outline several questions that qualitative researchers might consider surrounding the ethics of open data sharing. Overall, we argue that universal open raw data mandates cannot adequately represent the diversity of qualitative research, and that MIRD may harm rigorous and ethical research practice within health psychology and beyond. Researchers should instead find ways to demonstrate rigour thorough engagement with questions surrounding data sharing. We propose that all researchers utilise the increasingly common 'data availability statement' to demonstrate reflexive engagement with issues of ethics, epistemology and participant protection when considering whether to open data.
    Keywords:  ethics; mandatory inclusion of raw data; open data; open research; open science; qualitative methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053231225903
  7. Account Res. 2024 Feb 01. 1-28
    Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.
    Daniel G Hamilton, Matthew J Page, Sarah Everitt, Hannah Fraser, Fiona Fidler.
      BACKGROUND: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.METHODS: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.
    RESULTS: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.
    Keywords:  cancer; data sharing; oncology; open science; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2308606
  8. J Dent. 2024 Jan 30. pii: S0300-5712(24)00039-3. [Epub ahead of print] 104869
    Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: a meta-research study.
    William Vinicius de Oliveira Santos, Lara Dotto, Ticiane de Góes Mário Ferreira, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre.
      OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0-100%) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.
    RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70%) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60% recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7% did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4% stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50% of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7% confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9% (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).
    CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.
    Keywords:  Data Sharing in Dentistry; Dental Journals; Open Science Practices; Preprints in Dental Research; Reporting Guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104869
  9. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024 ;9(1): e001361
    Call on the academic publishing industry to provide equitable access to their journals.
    Adam Gyedu, Samuel Mensah.
      
    Keywords:  communication; editorial; ethics; information dissemination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001361
  10. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci. 2024 Jan;4(1): 110-119
    Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.
    Adrianna P Kępińska, Jessica S Johnson, Laura M Huckins.
      Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.
    Keywords:  Equity; Methodology; Open access; Open science; Psychiatric genetics; Reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2023.08.007
  11. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024 Jan 29. 1
    Erratum to "The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals".
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00734
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒02‒04 at 17:52.