bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒03‒17
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Peer-replication model aims to address science's 'reproducibility crisis'.
  2. Is full transparency in clinical trials an achievable goal?
  3. Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.
  4. Inequities in Academic Publishing: Where Is the Evidence and What Can Be Done?
  5. David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.
  6. Reporting bias in breast reconstruction clinical trials: Which and when clinical trials get published.
  7. Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process.
  8. Peer review demystified: part 1.
  9. Embrace AI to break down barriers in publishing for people who aren't fluent in English.
  10. ChatGPT for scientific writing - The coexistence of opportunities and challenges.
  11. A commentary on: 'Matters arising: authors of research papers must cautiously use ChatGPT for scientific writing'.
  12. The State of Open Science Practices in Psychometric Studies of Suicide: A Systematic Review.
  13. The challenges of open data sharing for qualitative researchers.
  14. Authorship Inflation in Radiologic and Medical Publications: The Effects of Publish or Perish.
  15. Journals must expand access to peer review data.
  16. [Promoting responsible consumption and production of scientific information in orthopedics].
  17. Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.
  18. Moving Your Work From Presentation to Publication.
  19. How to make your Abstract noticeable during submission for paper presentation in a Conference: Points to ponder!!!
  20. From scraped to published.
  1. Nature. 2024 Mar 13.
    Peer-replication model aims to address science's 'reproducibility crisis'.
    James Mitchell Crow.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Peer review; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00796-0
  2. Eur J Intern Med. 2024 Mar 08. pii: S0953-6205(24)00099-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Is full transparency in clinical trials an achievable goal?
    Rafael Dal-Ré.
      
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; Individual participant data sharing; Informed consent form; Protocol; Publication; Registration; Statistical analysis plan
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2024.03.006
  3. Sci Rep. 2024 03 11. 14(1): 5883
    Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.
    Reint A Meursinge Reynders, Davide Cavagnetto, Gerben Ter Riet, Nicola Di Girolamo, Mario Malički.
      A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55966-x
  4. Am J Public Health. 2024 Apr;114(4): 377-381
    Inequities in Academic Publishing: Where Is the Evidence and What Can Be Done?
    Meredith Loui, Steven C Fiala.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307587
  5. Ecol Lett. 2024 Mar;27(3): e14395
    David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.
    Aurore Receveur, Jonathan Bonfanti, Stephanie D'Agata, Andrew J Helmstetter, Nikki A Moore, Brunno F Oliveira, Cathleen Petit-Cailleux, Erica Rievrs Borges, Marieke Schultz, Aaron N Sexton, Devi Veytia.
      The publish-or-perish culture in academia has catalysed the development of an unethical publishing system. This system is characterised by the proliferation of journals and publishers-unaffiliated with learned societies or universities-that maintain extremely large revenues and profit margins diverting funds away from the academic community. Early career researchers (ECRs) are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of this publishing system because of intersecting factors, including pressure to pursue high impact publications, rising publication costs and job insecurity. Moving towards a more ethical system requires that scientists advocate for structural change by making career choices that come with risks, many of which disproportionately impact ECRs. We illuminate major issues facing ECRs in Ecology and Evolution under the current publishing system, and propose a portfolio of actions to promote systemic change that can be implemented by ECRs and established researchers.
    Keywords:  early career researcher; ethics, academic publishing; funding; open access; publication system; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14395
  6. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024 Feb 09. pii: S1748-6815(24)00079-2. [Epub ahead of print]91 399-406
    Reporting bias in breast reconstruction clinical trials: Which and when clinical trials get published.
    Oluwatobi R Olaiya, Beraki Abraha, Obehi Jacob Ogbeide, Minh N Q Huynh, Asmarah Amin, Mark H McRae, Christopher J Coroneos, Lawrence Mbuagbaw.
      BACKGROUND: Reporting bias refers to the phenomenon in which the reporting of research findings is influenced by the nature of the results. Without the totality of evidence, clinical practice may be misguided. The objective of this work was to examine the extent of reporting bias in clinical trials of breast reconstruction surgery.METHODS: We searched and extracted data from all completed breast reconstruction clinical trials published in ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to August 2020. Investigators sought to identify published full manuscripts of the registered trials. The primary outcome was classified as positive or nonpositive and trials were classified as industry or nonindustry funded. Time to publication in a peer-reviewed journal was computed and compared using time-to-event analysis. Trial characteristics associated with publication were evaluated using logistic regression.
    RESULTS: A total of 156 clinical trials were identified, of which, 53 trials were published. The median time to publication was 22 months (IQR, 13-35 months). Industry-funded studies were associated with a longer time to publication (HR = 2.4, p = 0.023) and publication in lower-impact journals (OR = 3.7, p = 0.048). Randomized clinical trials were associated with faster times to publication than nonrandomized studies (aHR = 3.2, p = 0.030). Statistical significance and the effect size were not associated with time to publication.
    CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that industry-funded trials were more likely to report a positive primary outcome. However, industry-funded trials were associated with a longer time to publication and publication in lower-impact journals.
    Keywords:  Breast reconstruction; Epidemiology; Methodology; Publication bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.02.017
  7. Tunis Med. 2023 Oct 05. 101(10): 721-726
    Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process.
    Ismail Dergaa, Lilia Zakhama, Chedly Dziri, Helmi Ben Saad.
      The integrity of the peer-review process (PRP) is paramount in academic publishing and serves as a critical filter for scholarly output. This mini-review centers on the introduction of comprehensive guidelines, presented in tables format, aimed at streamlining the interactions between authors and reviewers during the PRP. These guidelines, derived from an in-depth exploration of the PRP, offer structured and practical advice to ensure constructive, transparent, and effective communication, especially related to the use of artificial intelligence. While this mini-review discusses the strengths and challenges of the current PRP, its primary focus is on providing tangible recommendations to enhance the quality and efficiency of the PRP. By providing explicit guidelines and emphasizing the cooperative essence of peer review, this mini-review aims to improve the PRP, ensuring that it remains a robust mechanism for upholding the highest standards of research and knowledge dissemination in an evolving academic setting.
  8. Nat Methods. 2024 Mar;21(3): 361
    Peer review demystified: part 1.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02225-6
  9. Nature. 2024 Mar;627(8003): 271
    Embrace AI to break down barriers in publishing for people who aren't fluent in English.
    Charles Morphy D Santos, João Paulo Gois.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00761-x
  10. J Orthop Translat. 2024 Jan;44 A1-A3
    ChatGPT for scientific writing - The coexistence of opportunities and challenges.
    Liangbin Zhou, Alex Chao Wu, Péter Hegyi, Chunyi Wen, Ling Qin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2024.01.005
  11. Int J Surg. 2024 Mar 01. 110(3): 1877-1878
    A commentary on: 'Matters arising: authors of research papers must cautiously use ChatGPT for scientific writing'.
    Yi Fang, Junjie Chen, Renzhi Wang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001037
  12. Assessment. 2024 Mar 11. 10731911241236315
    The State of Open Science Practices in Psychometric Studies of Suicide: A Systematic Review.
    Pablo Ezequiel Flores-Kanter, Jesús M Alvarado.
      The adoption of open science practices (OSPs) is crucial for promoting transparency and robustness in research. We conducted a systematic review to assess the frequency and trends of OSPs in psychometric studies focusing on measures of suicidal thoughts and behavior. We analyzed publications from two international databases, examining the use of OSPs such as open access publication, preregistration, provision of open materials, and data sharing. Our findings indicate a lack of adherence to OSPs in psychometric studies of suicide. The majority of manuscripts were published under restricted access, and preregistrations were not utilized. The provision of open materials and data was rare, with limited access to instruments and analysis scripts. Open access versions (preprints/postprints) were scarce. The low adoption of OSPs in psychometric studies of suicide calls for urgent action. Embracing a culture of open science will enhance transparency, reproducibility, and the impact of research in suicide prevention efforts.
    Keywords:  assessment; questionable research practice; responsible research conduct; suicide research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241236315
  13. J Health Psychol. 2024 Mar 14. 13591053241237620
    The challenges of open data sharing for qualitative researchers.
    Danielle Lamb, Amy Russell, Nicola Morant, Fiona Stevenson.
      'Open Science' advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data.
    Keywords:  epistemology; methodology; open science; qualitative methods; quantitative methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053241237620
  14. Radiology. 2024 Mar;310(3): e240260
    Authorship Inflation in Radiologic and Medical Publications: The Effects of Publish or Perish.
    Lionel Arrivé.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.240260
  15. Trends Ecol Evol. 2024 Mar 11. pii: S0169-5347(24)00040-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Journals must expand access to peer review data.
    Olivia M Smith, Kayla L Davis, Robin Waterman, Riley B Pizza, Caitlin Mack, Emily E Conway, Kara C Dobson, Brianna Foster, Ani E Hristova, Julie C Jarvey, Nan Nourn, Courtney L Davis.
      Empirical studies on peer review bias are primarily conducted by people from privileged groups and with affiliations with the journals studied. Data access is one major barrier to conducting peer review research. Accordingly, we propose pathways to broaden access to peer review data to people from more diverse backgrounds.
    Keywords:  EDI; bias; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.003
  16. Acta Ortop Mex. 2023 Nov-Dec;37(6):37(6): 323
    [Promoting responsible consumption and production of scientific information in orthopedics].
    A M Serrano-Ardila.
      No Abstract available.
  17. Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Mar 13. 291(2018): 20232840
    Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.
    Henry Arenas-Castro, Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, Shawan Chowdhury, Argelia Rodríguez-Contreras, Aubrie R M James, Nussaïbah B Raja, Emma M Dunne, Sandro Bertolino, Nayara Braga Emidio, Chantelle M Derez, Szymon M Drobniak, Graham R Fulton, L Francisco Henao-Diaz, Avneet Kaur, Catherine J S Kim, Malgorzata Lagisz, Iliana Medina, Peter Mikula, Vikram P Narayan, Christopher J O'Bryan, Rachel Rui Ying Oh, Ekaterina Ovsyanikova, Katharina-Victoria Pérez-Hämmerle, Patrice Pottier, Jennifer Sarah Powers, Astrid J Rodriguez-Acevedo, Andes Hamuraby Rozak, Pedro H A Sena, Nicola J Sockhill, Anazélia M Tedesco, Francisco Tiapa-Blanco, Jo-Szu Tsai, Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas, Susana M Wadgymar, Masato Yamamichi, Tatsuya Amano.
      Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; biological sciences; inclusivity; language barriers; society journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2840
  18. Fam Med. 2024 Mar;56(3): 214
    Moving Your Work From Presentation to Publication.
    Octavia Amaechi, Sarina Schrager.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2024.429019
  19. Indian J Anaesth. 2024 Feb;68(Suppl 1): S6-S7
    How to make your Abstract noticeable during submission for paper presentation in a Conference: Points to ponder!!!
    Vanita Ahuja, Kaushic Theerth, Rakesh Garg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_165_24
  20. Patterns (N Y). 2024 Mar 08. 5(3): 100953
    From scraped to published.
    Alejandra Alvarado, Andrew L Hufton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.100953
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒03‒17 at 5:10.