bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–03–24
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2024 Mar;5(2): 195-197
      Journal clubs have been a staple in scientific communities, facilitating discussions on recent publications. However, the overwhelming volume of biomedical information poses a challenge in literature selection. This article provides an overview of journal club types and their efficacy in training potential peer reviewers, enhancing communication skills, and critical thinking. Originating in the 19th century, journal clubs have evolved from traditional in-person meetings to virtual or hybrid formats, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Face-to-face interactions offer personal connections, while virtual events ensure wider participation and accessibility. Organizing journal clubs demands effort, but it has several benefits, including promoting new publications and providing a platform for meaningful discussions. The virtual CardioRNA J-club experience exemplifies successful multidisciplinary collaboration, fostering international connections and inspiring new research. Journal clubs remain a vital component of academic research, equipping senior researchers with the latest developments and nurturing the next generation of scientists. As millennial and Gen Z researchers join the scientific field, journal clubs continue to evolve as a fertile ground for education and collaborative learning in an ever-changing scientific landscape.
    Keywords:  Debate; Journal clubs; Scientific learning; Soft skills; Training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztae003
  2. Skinmed. 2024 ;22(1): 14-16
      Highly critical reviews of medical books are rarely encountered in our age, but this was not always the case. I provide an example of a very negative review of an early medical book that may have blocked the author from further publication.Papers published in reputable journals are subjected to review by experts, whose task is to find weakness in research and/or flaws in its arguments. Published reviews of textbooks that appear these days are generally laudatory, calling attention to the strengths of the book with little mention of any shortcomings. Non-meritorious works are usually winnowed out by the editing process and never make it to publication.
  3. Learn Publ. 2023 Jul;36(3): 334-347
      Peer review plays an essential role as one of the cornerstones of the scholarly publishing system. There are many initiatives that aim to improve the way in which peer review is organized, resulting in a highly complex landscape of innovation in peer review. Different initiatives are based on different views on the most urgent challenges faced by the peer review system, leading to a diversity of perspectives on how the system can be improved. To provide a more systematic understanding of the landscape of innovation in peer review, we suggest that the landscape is shaped by four schools of thought: The Quality & Reproducibility school, the Democracy & Transparency school, the Equity & Inclusion school, and the Efficiency & Incentives school. Each school has a different view on the key problems of the peer review system and the innovations necessary to address these problems. The schools partly complement each other, but we argue that there are also important tensions between them. We hope that the four schools of thought offer a useful framework to facilitate conversations about the future development of the peer review system.
    Keywords:  innovation; peer review; scholarly publishing; school of thought
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544
  4. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2024 Mar 14. pii: S2589-9333(24)00046-6. [Epub ahead of print] 101320
      
    Keywords:  Triple-blind; peer-review; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101320
  5. Account Res. 2024 Mar 22. 1-17
      Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by "ChatGPT" and 100 by "Claude"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.
    Keywords:  AI; AI in academic writing; AI policies; ChatGPT; Medical Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2331757
  6. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024 Apr;pii: S1473-3099(24)00160-9. [Epub ahead of print]24(4): 329
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00160-9
  7. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2024 Mar 18. pii: S1934-5925(24)00065-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2024.03.006
  8. Aesthet Surg J. 2024 Mar 22. pii: sjae066. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae066
  9. Women Birth. 2024 Mar 19. pii: S1871-5192(24)00043-X. [Epub ahead of print]37(3): 101595
      The rules for writing a research report are well defined but novice writers need more clarification on writing scholarly scientific papers for publication. The purpose of this paper is to enable novice writers to confidently apply the skills of scientific writing to the development of a scholarly paper for publication. We highlight the importance of having a clearly defined question or clarity in focus before moving on to consider the components of a scholarly paper including, the question, thesis, introduction, body, discussion, conclusion and finally, an abstract.
    Keywords:  Argument; Essay structure; Evidence; Midwifery; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101595
  10. Head Neck Pathol. 2024 Mar 19. 18(1): 22
       BACKGROUND: Scientific publication is the cornerstone to academic and private practice advancement in patient management and outcomes. Writing a manuscript requires a certain discipline and skill set that can be achieved with diligence and hard work.
    METHODS: Anecdotal and review.
    RESULTS: Several factors must be considered in scientific writing and journal manuscript submission and acceptance. Choosing where to submit the manuscript; understanding the instructions to authors; disclosing ethically; formatting correctly; never plagiarizing; supplying high quality appropriate images; creating meaningful tables; curating a pertinent but thorough bibliography; having valid, supported conclusions; and respecting timelines.
    CONCLUSION: A discussion of relevant components in manuscript writing and journal submission to improve your chances of acceptance.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Manuscripts; Publication components; Quality; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-024-01617-6
  11. Nature. 2024 Mar 20.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00865-4