bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–06–09
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Lancet. 2024 Jun 01. pii: S0140-6736(24)01081-X. [Epub ahead of print]403(10442): 2360-2361
    Lancet Group for Racial Equity (GRacE)
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01081-X
  2. Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8015): S2-S4
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Government; Policy; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01596-2
  3. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2024 Jun 06.
      
    Keywords:  abstract; guidelines; relevance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14091
  4. J Nephrol. 2024 Jun 05.
       OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which nephrology journals recommend and require reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration.
    BACKGROUND: Despite a rising disease burden, research published on chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the field of nephrology has failed to keep pace and is limited. To improve the quality of research in the field of nephrology, reporting guidelines have been developed to minimize such deficits in research quality. However, the extent to which nephrology journals require and use reporting guidelines in addition to clinical trial registration is unknown.
    METHODS: Sixty-two Nephrology journals were selected through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Each journal's Instructions for Authors was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Researchers used R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio to create data summaries of descriptive statistics for nephrology journal reporting guidelines.
    RESULTS: Clinical trial registration was required by 52% (32/62) of nephrology journals within our sample. The reporting guideline for clinical trials, CONSORT, was required by 17.74% (11/62) of journals. The EQUATOR Network was mentioned by 46.77% (29/62) of journals, while 9.67% (6/62) failed to mention the ICMJE. The reporting guideline for systematic review, PRISMA, was only required by 12.90% (8/62) of journals. When contacting journal editors, 9.67% (6/62) responded and 4.83% (3/62) provided clarifying information.
    CONCLUSIONS: Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are suboptimally required and recommended by nephrology journals. Their adoption may decrease bias and increase research quality. Thus, nephrology journals should consider a more complete endorsement of these safeguards.
    Keywords:  Clinical Trial Registration; Instructions for Authors; Reporting Guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-024-01977-w
  5. Eur Urol Focus. 2024 Jun 04. pii: S2405-4569(24)00083-X. [Epub ahead of print]
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is considered standard for authors of scientific papers to provide access to their raw data. The purpose of this study was to investigate data availability statements (DAS) and the actual availability of data in urology.
    METHODS: The DAS policies of the top ten urology journals were retrieved. Then 190 selected papers were classified according to their DAS status. Finally, we contacted the corresponding authors of papers that stated that data were available on request to enquire about this possibility.
    KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: All journals either required or highly recommended a DAS. Among the selected articles, 52% (99/190) included a DAS stating data availability, most often on reasonable request to the corresponding author. A formal DAS was lacking in 29.5% (56/190) of the articles, with an additional 18.3% (35/190) citing various reasons for data unavailability. On contact, 23.4% (15/64) of corresponding authors indicated a willingness to share their data. Overall, data were unavailable in 73.7% (140/190) of cases. There was no difference between papers dealing with malignant and benign diseases.
    CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a gap between the intention to share data and actual practice in major urological journals. As data sharing plays a critical role in safeguarding the reliability of published results and in the potential for reanalysis and merging of datasets, there is a clear need for improvement. Easier access to data repositories and stronger enforcement of existing journal policies are essential.
    PATIENT SUMMARY: To ensure the reliability of data and allow further analyses, major urology journals require authors to make their data available to other researchers when possible. However, in practice we found that data were only accessible for about a quarter of published scientific papers.
    Keywords:  Data availability statement; Data repository; Data sharing; Research integrity; Research transparency; Urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.05.019
  6. Curr Urol Rep. 2024 Jun 05.
       PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is incumbent upon training programs to set the foundation for evidence-based practices and to create opportunities for trainees to develop into academic leaders. As dedicated resident research time and funding have declined in recent years, residency programs and the field at large will need to create new ways to incorporate scholarly activity into residency curricula.
    RECENT FINDINGS: Literature across specialties demonstrates barriers to resident involvement including lack of time, cost, and absent scholarly mentorship. Peer review stands as a ready-made solution that can be formalized into a collaborative relationship with journals. A formal relationship between professional societies, academic journals, and residencies can facilitate the use of peer review as a teaching tool for residency programs.
    Keywords:  Medical education; Peer review; Resident education; Scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-024-01208-6
  7. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2024 May;8 e2400077
       PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) models can generate scientific abstracts that are difficult to distinguish from the work of human authors. The use of AI in scientific writing and performance of AI detection tools are poorly characterized.
    METHODS: We extracted text from published scientific abstracts from the ASCO 2021-2023 Annual Meetings. Likelihood of AI content was evaluated by three detectors: GPTZero, Originality.ai, and Sapling. Optimal thresholds for AI content detection were selected using 100 abstracts from before 2020 as negative controls, and 100 produced by OpenAI's GPT-3 and GPT-4 models as positive controls. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of predicted AI content with submission year and abstract characteristics, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were computed.
    RESULTS: Fifteen thousand five hundred and fifty-three abstracts met inclusion criteria. Across detectors, abstracts submitted in 2023 were significantly more likely to contain AI content than those in 2021 (aOR range from 1.79 with Originality to 2.37 with Sapling). Online-only publication and lack of clinical trial number were consistently associated with AI content. With optimal thresholds, 99.5%, 96%, and 97% of GPT-3/4-generated abstracts were identified by GPTZero, Originality, and Sapling respectively, and no sampled abstracts from before 2020 were classified as AI generated by the GPTZero and Originality detectors. Correlation between detectors was low to moderate, with Spearman correlation coefficient ranging from 0.14 for Originality and Sapling to 0.47 for Sapling and GPTZero.
    CONCLUSION: There is an increasing signal of AI content in ASCO abstracts, coinciding with the growing popularity of generative AI models.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00077
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Jun 03. pii: S0895-4356(24)00160-4. [Epub ahead of print] 111405
       OBJECTIVE: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting, and represent a step towards data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) require clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. To assess requirement for data sharing statements by biomedical journals, and to explore associations between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2022 and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements.
    RESULTS: Of the 3,229 biomedical journals included in the analyses, 2,345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43 to 4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78 to 3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were Open Access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81.
    CONCLUSION: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of biomedical journals do not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.
    Keywords:  ICMJE; clinical trial; data sharing; data sharing statements; journal requirement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111405
  9. J Neurosci. 2024 Jun 05. pii: e0907242024. [Epub ahead of print]44(23):
    JNeurosci Early Career Researcher Advisory Board
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0907-24.2024
  10. Eur J Radiol. 2024 May 24. pii: S0720-048X(24)00234-1. [Epub ahead of print]176 111518
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111518
  11. Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Jun 06. 10(1): 54
       BACKGROUND: Scientific publications featuring patient-driven innovations (i.e., innovations that are developed and driven by patients or informal caregivers) are increasing. By understanding patient innovators' experiences of research publication, the scientific community may be better prepared to support or partner with patient innovators. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of authoring scientific publications about their innovations.
    METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 international patient innovators from three continents who had published in scientific journals. Participants were identified through a scoping review on patient-driven innovations and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted from June to October 2022 and the data was analyzed using the Framework Method.
    FINDINGS: Participants' reasons for publishing in scientific journals were to strengthen the roles and voices of patients and informal caregivers, and to get recognition for their innovations. Some published as a response to serendipitous opportunities. Several positive experiences were reported: collaborations defined by transparency, mutual respect, and meaningful participation; learning and competence development; and gained confidence regarding the value of lived experiences in research. Participants also reported negative experiences, such as cultural barriers manifested as conservatism in academia and power imbalances between participants and researchers, and structural barriers regarding academic affiliations and research funding.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in increasing patient and public involvement in research and publication, our study found that patient innovators still experience barriers. This suggests that continued efforts are needed to facilitate contributions from patient innovators and other public actors to the production of relevant and meaningful research.
    Keywords:  Patient agency; Patient and public involvement; Patient author; Patient-driven innovations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00589-9
  12. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2024 Jun 05. pii: S1572-1000(24)00270-9. [Epub ahead of print] 104233
      The current situation with regard to journal publishing is markedly different from the days when everything was done by mail and subscriptions paid the costs. In even earlier times, i.e., the era of Darwin, scientists tended to publish their findings in book form only after prolonged investigations. Now, publishing is Big Business, scavengers troll the internet for evidence of questionable data to report, significant numbers of CHF can be exchanged for access to journals and reviewing can be hazardous. In the era of the internet, appearance of a report with significant errors missed by reviewers can lead to 'publish AND perish'.
    Keywords:  Photodynamic; commentary
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104233
  13. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2024 Jun 03.
      
    Keywords:  publishing; report writing; research planning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14093
  14. J Hum Lact. 2024 Jun 06. 8903344241257861
      
    Keywords:  International Board Certified Lactation Consultant; Methodology; breastfeeding; human milk; lactation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344241257861
  15. J Sci Med Sport. 2024 Jun;pii: S1440-2440(24)00203-2. [Epub ahead of print]27(6): 361
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2024.05.013
  16. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2024 Jun;9(3): e1266
       Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.
    Methods: This is a narrative review.
    Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it.
    Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.
    Keywords:  checklist; editorial; guide; manuscript review; peer review; primer; research; reviewer; scientific journal; scientific review; template; tutorial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1266
  17. J Allied Health. 2024 ;53(2): 103
      The late David Foster Wallace wrote The Pale King, a fictional novel about tax collectors in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It was published posthumously on Tax Day following his suicide in 2008. In it, he claims that the Latin expression in the above subheading is the motto for the IRS where it means, "He is the one doing a difficult, unpopular job," but no such actual motto exists for that government entity. Instead, another interpretation of the saying might be "Anyway, someone has to do it," which conveniently sums up the kinds of responsibilities undertaken by a journal editor.
  18. Crit Care Explor. 2024 Jun;6(6): e1103
       OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase.
    DESIGN: Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status.
    SETTING: All work was done electronically and retrospectively.
    SUBJECTS: The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list.
    INTERVENTIONS: None.
    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals.
    CONCLUSIONS: Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.
    Keywords:  COVID-19 pandemic; PubMed; bibliometrics; explosive; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001103
  19. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2024 Jun;34(6): 744
      Null.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.06.744
  20. Am J Vet Res. 2024 May 29. pii: ajvr.85.06.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]85(6):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.85.06.editorial
  21. Folia Biol (Praha). 2024 ;70(1): 1-44
      Folia Biologica celebrates 70 years of continuous publication of research papers. The first volume was published in Prague in 1954 on behalf of the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (since 1990 the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) under the subtitle "International edition of the journal Czechoslovakian Biology". Born in the dark days of the Cold War, Folia Biologica provided a thin but important link between the politically controlled science behind the Iron Curtain in the former Czechoslovakia and that of the free Western world. Initially, the journal focused on research papers in the fields of experimental medicine, immunology, virology, and experimental zoology. Since 1961 (Volume 7), Folia Biologica has been indexed in the Web of Science database. The first issue of Volume 7 was introduced by a review article by Peter Brian Medawar (1915-1987), winner of the 1960 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for the discovery of acquired immunological tolerance", which is reprinted in this anniversary issue [1].In the late 1960s, during the political relaxation that culminated in the Prague Spring, cooperation with free Western science intensified and enabled a lively scientific dialogue between Czechoslovak and foreign biological scientists, namely immunologists, molecular biologists, and virologists, as illustrated by a series of original research articles from Folia Biologica by Georg Davis Snell (1903-1996) and Jean Dausset (1916-2009), who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1980 "for their discoveries concerning genetically determined structures on the cell surface that regulate immunological reactions", which led to the discovery of the major histocompatibility system (MHC) [2-7]. Another powerful example is an article in Folia Biologica by François Jacob (1920-2013), who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965 for discoveries that helped elucidate the transcriptional control of enzyme levels [8].Despite the years of political repression during the "normalization" period following the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968, the scientists and editors of Folia Biologica from the Academy of Sciences were able to maintain vibrant contacts with the world's leading scientists. In 1981, the journal changed its subtitle to "Journal of Cellular and Molecular Biology". In 1983, Folia Biologica published the article by Renato Dulbecco (1914-2012), who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1975 for "discoveries concerning the interaction between tumor viruses and the genetic material of the cell"[9].With further orientation towards human molecular medicine, the journal entered the era after the Velvet Revolution in 1989, which represented the desired end of political control over national science. The interest of Czechoslovak and Czech scientists in publishing in Folia Biologica began to decline at the end of the 1990s, when they had at their disposal the full range of scientific journals from all over the world. Since volume 63 (January 2006), Folia Biologica has been published by the First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, in a fully open access model.With the new decade that begins with this issue, the journal has undergone a series of improvements, including the strengthening of the editorial board, the assignment of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) number to each article, the improvement of the cover layout and graphics, the innovation of the website, and a more precise definition of the journal's aim. Folia Biologica now publishes articles describing original research aimed at elucidating a wide range of issues in biomedicine, especially in oncology and human molecular genetics. In addition, the journal focuses on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of disease and provides studies on all organisms, cells and tissues that serve as biological and disease models, as well as clinical and translational research studies. Further improvements towards sustainable and rapid publication will be accomplished by introducing an online-only publication model planned for 2025.To celebrate the 70th anniversary of Folia Biologica, we begin the anniversary volume with the reprint of Sir Peter Brian Medawar's review. To commemorate the continuing history of the journal, and to thank our predecessors and contributors, we present the title pages, table of contents, and editorial boards of Folia Biologica by decade, illustrating the changes in research focus, human knowledge, and the evolution of the journal.We would like to thank all authors, reviewers, editorial board members, editors and managing editors involved in the journal production in the past decades, namely Ivan Málek, Milan Hašek, Alena Langerová, Josef Říman, Jan Bubeník, Jan Svoboda, Emanual Nečas, Karel Smetana Jr. and Zdeněk Kostrouch, for their commitment and dedication to Folia Biologica.We wish our journal many more decades of scientifically interesting articles, publishing open-minded science by excellent authors for the pleasure of satisfied readers!
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14712/fb2024070010001
  22. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2024 May 17. 28(3): 236-237
      Anecdotally, from personal experience as a growing editor and in talking with experienced editors, rejecting evidence-based project manuscripts that do not include patient outcomes is routine. Phrased differently, it is typic.
    Keywords:  DNP-prepared nurses; evidence-based practice; health equity; nursing; patient outcomes
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/24.CJON.236-237
  23. Dev Biol. 2024 Jun 04. pii: S0012-1606(24)00145-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2024.06.001
  24. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2024 May 24. 50(5): 119-120
      
    Keywords:  CCDR; Canada Communicable Disease Report; Editor-in-Chief; infectious diseases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14745/ccdr.v50i05a01