bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒02‒25
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 22. 14(1): 4385
      A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54909-w
  2. Eur J Neurol. 2024 Feb 20. e16236
      This paper retraces the early history of the European Journal of Neurology (EJN), as it is about to enter its 30th year. It describes how our discipline organized itself during the latter part of the 20th century in Europe. In some ways, the creation and the evolution of the journal parallel the process of unification of Europe in its current form in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It started as a new journal with no impact factor and no indexation. It grew progressively thanks to the support of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) and from the European scientific community The progressive merging of EFNS with the European Society of Neurology and the creation of the European Academy of Neurology were essential for reaching the current prominence of EJN within neurological publishing and for making it the widely heard official voice of European neurology.
    Keywords:  European Academy of Neurology; European Federation of Neurological Societies; European Neurological Society; European neurology; history
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.16236
  3. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2024 Feb 20.
      PURPOSE: To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions.METHODS: The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling.
    RESULTS: Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (P < 0.05 for all).
    CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; checklist; guideline; machine learning; reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.232604
  4. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2024 Jan-Feb;78(1):78(1): 1-2
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2024.001824
  5. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 ;8(1): e20
      Research articles in the clinical and translational science literature commonly use quantitative data to inform evaluation of interventions, learn about the etiology of disease, or develop methods for diagnostic testing or risk prediction of future events. The peer review process must evaluate the methodology used therein, including use of quantitative statistical methods. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for peer reviewers tasked with assessing quantitative methodology, intended to complement guidelines and recommendations that exist for manuscript authors. We describe components of clinical and translational science research manuscripts that require assessment including study design and hypothesis evaluation, sampling and data acquisition, interventions (for studies that include an intervention), measurement of data, statistical analysis methods, presentation of the study results, and interpretation of the study results. For each component, we describe what reviewers should look for and assess; how reviewers should provide helpful comments for fixable errors or omissions; and how reviewers should communicate uncorrectable and irreparable errors. We then discuss the critical concepts of transparency and acceptance/revision guidelines when communicating with responsible journal editors.
    Keywords:  Biostatistics; clinical and translational science; peer review; reviewer guidance; study design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.707
  6. Trends Ecol Evol. 2024 Feb 22. pii: S0169-5347(24)00033-8. [Epub ahead of print]
      Academic writing is difficult, especially for non-native English speakers. We share a perspective on writing with a set of heuristics called the Writing Alphabet, consisting of Accurate, Brief, Clear, Dynamic, Engaging, Flowing, Goal, Habit, and Investment. These points can help struggling writers identify issues and, importantly, internalise good writing practices.
    Keywords:  academic writing; language barriers; native language; scientific writing; second language
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.01.008
  7. Malays Fam Physician. 2024 ;19 3
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; Medical; Research; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.51866/lte.545
  8. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2024 Apr;pii: S0891-8422(23)00103-9. [Epub ahead of print]41(2): 351-358
      Authors have a wide range of journals to which they can submit their report for consideration for publication. One key to getting the journal editors to accept a report is that the manuscript is properly organized and in compliance with the journal's Guide for Authors. For this reason, the single most important undertaking that an author can do before submission is read the journal's Guide for Authors and make sure that the report meets the journal's requirements for publication. If the subject matter is interesting and scientifically rigorous, then a well-written manuscript that complies with the journal's requirements will likely cruise through the peer review process and get accepted for publication. With this in mind, we now break down the elements of a report of original research and describe useful details that enhance the manuscript and leave little to revise.
    Keywords:  Electornic search terms; Journal’s guidefor authors; Publication; Report of scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2023.08.004
  9. J Clin Apher. 2024 Feb;39(1): e22108
      Little instruction in writing manuscripts for peer review is provided in nursing school or medical school. To relatively inexperienced would-be authors, including junior physicians and allied health professionals, this avenue of professional communication may sometimes seem to be unattainable. Yet many of them are energetic and insightful, and have the potential to make contributions to the literature. This article aims to provide an explanation of the components of the peer review manuscript and advice regarding how to go about writing one so as to overcome the writer's block that inexperienced authors may frequently experience.
    Keywords:  apheresis; manuscript; peer review; publishing; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.22108
  10. Med Trop Sante Int. 2023 Dec 31. pii: mtsi.v3i4.2023.454. [Epub ahead of print]3(4):
      Introduction: Scientific journals are the main source of scientific data, ensuring their registration, validation, distribution and archiving. With over 2.6 million scientific articles published each year, the turnover of scientific journals exceeds $25 billion annually. Five publishers share nearly half of this lucrative market. Scientists are the key players in the process, but other stakeholders have gradually been introduced, building various business models whose similarities and differences are described here.Concepts underlying scientific publication: Open access to scientific papers dates back to the scientific and technical revolution of the 17th century. However, its evolution has been considerably boosted by the development of the Internet and the recognition of science as "commons".Scientific integrity is under the control of research institutions to ensure the prevention of fraud and misconduct in the course of scientific production. Usually, the scientific integrity is questioned during the manuscript reviewing process which may result in identification of flaws.
    Models of scientific publications: In the historical model, readers pay for access to the document. Authors are not remunerated and renounce copyright on their articles to the publisher. The limits of the historical model became clear in the 90s, facing the cost of publishing, reduction in the number of subscribers, development of the Internet and willingness to improve manuscript evaluation.With the development of the Internet and the paradigm of open access, publishers proposed a new model in the 2000s, replacing the cost of access to articles for the reader with the payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) paid by the author or its institution ("author pays" model). In this model, the content of the article can be freely reproduced and used, provided that the original author is credited. In addition to the evaluation of the manuscript which remains a critical factor, the cost of publication appears inequitable. However, all or part of the APCs may be waived, particularly for authors from low- and middle-income countries.For the past 15 years or so, publishers, learned societies and academic or research institutions (including libraries) have been seeking to publish reliable, open access manuscripts that respect scientific integrity while being affordable for the author.Predatory journals emerged in the late 2000s, taking advantage of the success of the authorpays model to capture APCs. Lacking a proper evaluation process resulting in poor-quality publications, these journals are rejected by most scientific institutions. On the other hand, they are particularly attractive in low- and middle-income countries because of their aggressive commercial practices (insistent invitation to submit a manuscript, low rejection rate, rapid publication, reduced APC, etc.).The purpose of each journal is to secure its economic model. This goes through ensuring its visibility, which is determined by the number of citations (online and social media citations) rather than the quality of the articles published.
    Peer review: This very old concept has not been widely used until the 20th century. In the historical model, manuscript evaluation is generally carried out by members of the learned society that publishes the journal. Evaluation can be either unblinded, single-blinded (referee is anonymous) or double-blinded (author and referee are anonymous). Several studies have shown that blind procedures do not alter the quality of the evaluation. Since the early 90s, post-publication evaluation has emerged, of which there are several variants. The aim is to shorten times to publication and open up the evaluation process more widely in order to limit the bias. Apart from the fact that this system does not guarantee a better evaluation of the manuscript, its main disadvantage is that the article is accessible without validation of the data collection and analysis throughout the entire process, which can be lengthy.
    Cost and funding of scientific journals: The cost of an article depends on charges that vary according to the conditions and places of production. Reviewers are volunteers. On the other hand, manuscript management, editing and distribution are carried out by professionals, which entail financial charges. Some of these costs are lower in low- and medium-resource countries, where economies of scale and higher benefits are possible.
    Conclusion: The limits of the historical model have led to the development of several business models of scientific journals, that are in constant evolution, especially the author pays model which promises open access to publications but impacts scientific production. However, the evaluation of scientific production is heterogeneous due to a limited pool of reviewers inadequately selected. Scientific publishing is looking for solutions to find a virtuous model that respects open science, open access to data and scientific integrity. The "Diamond open access" model, free of charge for both readers and authors with the guarantee of an irrevocable license to reproduce the content of the article provided that the original source is cited, perfectly fits.
    Keywords:  APC; Academy; Data access; Internet; Learned society; Open access; Open archives; Open science; Peer review; Publisher; Scientific editor; Scientific integrity; Scientific journal; Scientific research; University library
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.48327/mtsi.v3i4.2023.454
  11. Med Trop Sante Int. 2023 Dec 31. pii: mtsi.v3i4.2023.429. [Epub ahead of print]3(4):
      Warnings against predatory journals get stronger. Designed to capture manuscripts with the promise of rapid publication, the main aim of these journals is to charge abusive publication fees. Sometimes boasting imaginary impact factors, they are not indexed and offer no guarantee of visibility, accessibility or durability of the published article. Above all, they have no concern for the rigor and scientific integrity of the work they publish.
    Keywords:  Creative Commons Attribution; Diamond Open Access; Peer review; Predatory journal; PubMed®; Publication fees; Scopus®
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.48327/mtsi.v3i4.2023.429
  12. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2024 Apr;pii: S0891-8422(23)00096-4. [Epub ahead of print]41(2): 359-366
      The peer review system has become the standard by which scientific articles are refereed. Unfortunately, even from its beginnings in the mid-1800s it has been fraught with difficulties. Potential reviewers are volunteers who may be inundated with requests to review yet these reviews take considerable time and effort. There is little motivation to complete a review causing significant delays in the publication process. There may be biases unintentionally built into the system between reviewers, authors, editors, and journals. Attempts to overcome these biases by various blinding schemes have been met with limited success. Finally, the recent advent of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to completely upend the system, for good or bad.
    Keywords:  Blinded peer review; Editorial policies; Peer review process; Research; Scientific publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2023.07.009
  13. Biochem Pharmacol. 2024 Feb 19. pii: S0006-2952(24)00050-9. [Epub ahead of print] 116067
      The passing of Sam Enna in June of 2023 is major loss to the world of pharmacology. While best known for his extensive research activities in the area of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) pharmacology, Sam devoted much of his professional time to teaching and as an Editor in Chief for the legacy journals - the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET - 1998-2003); Pharmacology & Therapeutics (P & T - 2003-2023) and Biochemical Pharmacology (BCP -2003-2023) - increasing the volume of submissions for all three journals and their Impact Factors while decreasing the time for peer review and publication. Sam was a well-respected consultant in the CNS area for the biopharmaceutical industry and served as Secretary General and President of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (IUPHAR) where his efforts were focused on sustaining research integrity, particularly in the areas of data reproducibility and fraud. This Commentary provides a personal overview of Sam's 50-year career in pharmacology and briefly updates topics that were of interest to Sam including: developments on the continuing reproducibility crisis where systematic fraud continues to proliferate now reaching industrial scale proportions, aided and abetted by paper mills, AI and the erosion of meritocratic norms; and the fall and rise of CNS drug discovery.
    Keywords:  CNS drug discovery; Fraud; Pharmacology; Reproducibility; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116067