bims-skolko 2024-06-16 papers

The demand for open data and open science is on the rise, fueled by expectations from the scientific community, calls to increase transparency and reproducibility in research findings, and developments such as the Final Data Management and Sharing Policy from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and a memorandum on increasing public access to federally funded research, issued by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy. This paper explores the pivotal role of data repositories in biomedical research and open science, emphasizing their importance in managing, preserving, and sharing research data. Our objective is to familiarize readers with the functions of data repositories, set expectations for their services, and provide an overview of methods to evaluate their capabilities. The paper serves to introduce fundamental concepts and community-based guiding principles and aims to equip researchers, repository operators, funders, and policymakers with the knowledge to select appropriate repositories for their data management and sharing needs and foster a foundation for the open sharing and preservation of research data.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03449-z

F1000Res. 2024 ;13 320

Monitoring Open Science as transformative change: Towards a systemic framework.

Ismael Rafols, Ingeborg Meijer, Jordi Molas-Gallart.

Following a flurry of policies for Open Science (OS), there is now a wave of initiatives to monitor its adoption. However, the great diversity of understandings and activities related to Open Science makes monitoring very challenging. There is a danger that by focusing on what can be readily observed (e.g. publications) many other OS activities are overlooked (e.g. participation), with a potential narrowing of OS scope, streetlight effects, and deviation from the values of OS. Since Open Science can be understood as a systemic transformation of the research system, we have borrowed concepts from Transformative Innovation Policies frameworks which aim at evaluating socio-technical transitions. In accordance with this view of OS as a systemic transformation, we propose that the new monitoring efforts should shift towards: (i) systemic perspectives which considers the various actions related to OS, including policies and outputs (e.g. datasets) but also processes (e.g. participatory events), outcomes (e.g. citizen interest in science) and expected impacts (e.g. better scientific contributions to addressing societal problems); (ii) implementation of monitoring as reflexive learning (rather than accountability or benchmarking); (iii) mapping the directionality of the activities and the values associated with the choices in directions. In summary, a monitoring framework for OS requires a profound change in conventional monitoring practices. The scope should broaden from current focus on outputs (such as publications) towards the processes of connection that make science 'open' (usage, co-creation and dialogue), as well as towards outcomes (changes in practices) and the longer-term impacts that reflect the values and normative commitments of OS.

Keywords: Evaluation; Monitoring; Open Access; Open Data; Open Science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148290.1

Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2024 Jun 12.

Where have all the reviewers gone?

Rachel H Ellaway.

In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem, and the prospects for sustaining communities of scholars with and without an ongoing commitment to peer review.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10350-2

mBio. 2024 Jun 14. e0176324

The mBio Early-Career Editorial Board Reviewer Training Program: cultivating excellence in peer review.

Arturo Casadevall, Maisha Miles, Miriam Day, Amanda Donaldson.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01763-24

Aust J Rural Health. 2024 Jun;32(3): 417-418

Yarning for peer review.

Clinton Schultz, Victor Oguoma, Justyce Pengilly, Pim Kuipers.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.13148

Surg Innov. 2024 Jun 11. 15533506241259916

Variability of Guidelines and Disclosures for AI-Generated Content in Top Surgical Journals.

Sina J Torabi, Michael J Warn, Benjamin F Bitner, Yarah M Haidar, Tjoson Tjoa, Edward C Kuan.

Background: When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns.Research Design: Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use.Results: We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use.Conclusions: Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia.

Keywords: ChatGPT; academia; artificial intelligence; medical writing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241259916

Crit Care. 2024 Jun 10. 28(1): 196

Can artificial intelligence help for scientific illustration? Details matter.

Julian Klug, Urs Pietsch.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04970-8

Annu Rev Virol. 2024 Jun 14.

Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Reviews.

Julie K Pfeiffer, Terence S Dermody.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vi-11-060624-100111

J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc. 2024 ;39(1): 4-5

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Scientific Publications.