bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–08–11
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. "Important Enough to Show the World": Using Authentic Research Opportunities and Micropublications to Build Students' Science Identities.
  2. Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.
  3. Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.
  4. Scientific publishing: crisis, challenges, and new opportunities.
  5. Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing.
  6. Large Language Models in Orthopaedic Publications: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
  7. A publishing platform that places code front and centre.
  8. What should journals do to prevent the publication of methodologically flawed systematic reviews?
  9. Reproducibility in chemistry research.
  10. CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
  11. Health sciences faculty publication patterns and related information-seeking behavior.
  12. Improving how orthopaedic journals report research outcomes based on sex and gender.
  13. [Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?]
  14. Practical guide to writing cover letters and response letters for scientific journals.
  15. Top 10 Tips for Writing an Outstanding Peer Review of an Original Research Article for Radiology.
  16. Dermatology Journal Advisory Boards and editorial independence.
  17. Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.
  18. Open science practices in the false memory literature.
  19. Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint.
  20. Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's manuscript resubmission deadlines: creating accountability structures for our authors.
  21. Science should save all, not just some.
  1. J Adv Acad. 2024 Aug;35(3): 432-460
    "Important Enough to Show the World": Using Authentic Research Opportunities and Micropublications to Build Students' Science Identities.
    Lisa DaVia Rubenstein, Kelsey A Woodruff, April M Taylor, James B Olesen, Philip J Smaldino, Eric M Rubenstein.
      Primarily undergraduate institutions (PUI) often struggle to provide authentic research opportunities that culminate in peer-reviewed publications due to "recipe-driven" lab courses and the comprehensive body of work necessary for traditional scientific publication. However, the advent of short-form, single-figure "micropublications" has created novel opportunities for early-career scientists to make and publish authentic scientific contributions on a scale and in a timespan compatible with their training periods. The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the benefits accrued by eight undergraduate and master's students who participated in authentic, small-scale research projects and disseminated their work as coauthors of peer-reviewed micropublications at a PUI. In these interviews, students reported that through the process of conducting and publishing their research, they developed specific competencies: reading scientific literature, proposing experiments, and collecting/interpreting publication-worthy data. Further, they reported this process enabled them to identify as contributing members of the greater scientific community.
    Keywords:  CUREs; micropublications; science identity; scientific competency; undergraduate research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X241238496
  2. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 05. 39(30): e215
    Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.
    Horacio Rivera.
      Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.
    Keywords:  Coercion Authorship; Coercive Authorship; Graduate Students; Inappropriate Authorship; Principal Investigators; Senior Scientists
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e215
  3. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(8): e0308377
    Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.
    Xiaoting Peng, Dehua Hu, Yi Guo, Hao Jiang, Xunsheng Wu, Qingyuan Hu.
       OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed.
    METHODS: Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures.
    RESULTS: First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures.
    CONCLUSION: Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308377
  4. Front Public Health. 2024 ;12 1417019
    Scientific publishing: crisis, challenges, and new opportunities.
    Paolo Vineis.
      
    Keywords:  bias; guidelines; mega-journals; peer review; quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1417019
  5. Account Res. 2024 Aug 07. 1-17
    Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing.
    Barton Moffatt, Alicia Hall.
      The recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led people to wonder whether they could act as an author on a scientific paper. This paper argues that AI systems should not be included on the author by-line. We agree with current commentators that LLMs are incapable of taking responsibility for their work and thus do not meet current authorship guidelines. We identify other problems with responsibility and authorship. In addition, the problems go deeper as AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities. From a broader publication ethics perspective, adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem. Deterrence is possible as backward-looking tools will likely be able to identify past AI usage. Finally, we question the value of using AI to produce more research simply for publication's sake.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; large language models; publication ethics; ; research ethics; scientific authorship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2386285
  6. Am J Sports Med. 2024 Jul;52(9): 2193-2195
    Large Language Models in Orthopaedic Publications: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
    Daniel C Wascher, Matthieu Ollivier.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; large language models; orthopaedic publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241265692
  7. Nature. 2024 Aug 07.
    A publishing platform that places code front and centre.
    Amanda Heidt.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02577-1
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Aug 02. pii: S0895-4356(24)00249-X. [Epub ahead of print] 111493
    What should journals do to prevent the publication of methodologically flawed systematic reviews?
    Km Saif Ur Rahman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111493
  9. Heliyon. 2024 Jul 30. 10(14): e33658
    Reproducibility in chemistry research.
    Rosaria Ciriminna, Giuseppe Angellotti, Giovanna Li Petri, Mario Pagliaro.
      Chemistry is a reproducible science whose pillars - synthesis and analysis - actually comprise a huge collection of highly reproducible experimental methods to synthesize and analyze substances. The historical development of chemistry, furthermore, shows that reproducibility of methods has been the companion of novelty and creative innovation. The "publish or perish" principle dominating global academia since over two decades, however, intrinsically contributes to the publication of non-reproducible research outcomes also in chemistry. A study on reproducibility of chemistry research seems therefore timely, especially now that chemists are slowly but inevitably adopting open science and its tools such as the preprint, open access, and data sharing. We conclude presenting three simple guidelines for enhanced publication of research findings in chemistry.
    Keywords:  Hype in chemistry; Intellectual humility; Open science; Reproducibility in chemistry; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33658
  10. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 05. 39(30): e225
    CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
    Ilke Coskun Benlidayi, Latika Gupta.
      The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews.
    Keywords:  Case Reports; Case Studies; Medical Writing; Review; Review Literature; Review of Reported Cases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e225
  11. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 01. 112(2): 73-80
    Health sciences faculty publication patterns and related information-seeking behavior.
    Sandy De Groote, Jung Mi Scoulas.
       Objectives: This study aims to explore how health science faculty publication patterns at a large public research university have changed over time and examine how productivity relates to their information-seeking behavior and perception of the academic library.
    Methods: Two datasets were utilized: one consisted of publication records of health sciences faculty spanning a 15-year period, while the other was from a faculty survey exploring faculty's perception of and satisfaction with library resources and services related to their research.
    Results: Health sciences faculty publication patterns have changed over time, characterized by greater productivity, collaboration, and use of literature in their publications. Faculty's literature use correlates with productivity, as evidenced by both datasets. The survey revealed that faculty with more publications tend to rely more on online journals and Interlibrary Loan (ILL). Similarly, the publication data indicated that less productive faculty tended to use fewer references in their publications.
    Discussion: The publication data and survey results offer valuable insights into the health sciences faculty's information-seeking behavior and productivity. Online access to information has been effective in facilitating use of information, as indicated by the greater incorporation of references in publications.
    Conclusion: The study highlights the changing publication patterns and productivity of health sciences faculty, as well as the role academic libraries play in supporting their research and publishing activities. Although multiple variables influence faculty access to and use of information, faculty attitudes towards the library and use of the library are related to faculty research and productivity.
    Keywords:  Academic Libraries; Faculty; Faculty publications; Research Practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1789
  12. Injury. 2024 Jul 08. pii: S0020-1383(24)00426-1. [Epub ahead of print] 111720
    Improving how orthopaedic journals report research outcomes based on sex and gender.
    Sex and Gender Research in Orthopaedic Journals Group
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2024.111720
  13. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2024 Jan 08. pii: e5395. [Epub ahead of print]62(1): 1-8
    [Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?]
    Jorgelina Barrios-De Tomasi.
      Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.
    Keywords:  Editorial Policies; Scientific Misconduct; Scientific Publication Ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10278149
  14. Ugeskr Laeger. 2024 Jul 08. pii: V01240073. [Epub ahead of print]186(28):
    Practical guide to writing cover letters and response letters for scientific journals.
    Mette Gyldenløve, Jacob Rosenberg.
      Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.61409/V01240073
  15. Radiology. 2024 Aug;312(2): e241208
    Top 10 Tips for Writing an Outstanding Peer Review of an Original Research Article for Radiology.
    Ariane R Panzer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.241208
  16. JAAD Int. 2024 Sep;16 224-236
    Dermatology Journal Advisory Boards and editorial independence.
    Heidi Bai, Gloria Lin, Jonathan Kantor, Dirk Elston, Jane M Grant-Kels, Dedee F Murrell, Jenny E Murase.
       Background: Dermatology journals play an essential role in the distribution and promotion of scientific and medical information. Despite this, there are little data on governance structure with respect to its editors, owners, and journal boards that oversee the day-to-day operations for these entities.
    Objective: This study aimed to explore the current governance structure of dermatology journals and best practice recommendations.
    Methods: The editors-in-chief of the major dermatology journals participated in an online survey of 29 questions to examine general statistics of each journal, open access model, governance structure, and process for editor selection or dismissal.
    Results: Of the 52 journal responses, 29 (55.8%) are society-owned journals with 19 (65.5%) primarily governed by a society board, while 18 (34.6%) have an advisory committee or alternative body. Most editor(s)-in-chief (56.9%) serve between 3- and 5-year terms, while 84.6% have the option of at least one renewal. Even though the selection, evaluation, and dismissal processes differed between the journals, generalized best practice recommendations were developed to help improve their overall organization and management.
    Conclusions: The oversight structure of dermatology journals varies, and some do not follow current best practice recommendations. Transparency regarding leadership, governance, and due process is needed to maintain editorial independence and integrity.
    Keywords:  dermatology; dermatology journal; journal editor; journal governance; society board
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdin.2023.08.001
  17. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Aug 06. 30(4): 35
    Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.
    Christian Wendelborn, Michael Anger, Christoph Schickhardt.
      Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Epistemic integrity; Funding agencies; Moral obligations; Research integrity; Scientific freedom; Scientific progress; Social value
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00491-3
  18. Memory. 2024 Aug 05. 1-13
    Open science practices in the false memory literature.
    Sera Wiechert, Phaedra Leistra, Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Yoni Pertzov, Bruno Verschuere.
      In response to the replication crisis in psychology, the scientific community has advocated open science practices to promote transparency and reproducibility. Although existing reviews indicate inconsistent and generally low adoption of open science in psychology, a current-day, detailed analysis is lacking. Recognising the significant impact of false memory research in legal contexts, we conducted a preregistered systematic review to assess the integration of open science practices within this field, analysing 388 publications from 2015 to 2023 (including 15 replications and 3 meta-analyses). Our findings indicated a significant yet varied adoption of open science practices. Most studies (86.86%) adhered to at least one measure, with publication accessibility being the most consistently adopted practice at 73.97%. While data sharing demonstrated the most substantial growth, reaching about 75% by 2023, preregistration and analysis script sharing lagged, with 20-25% adoption in 2023. This review highlights a promising trend towards enhanced research quality, transparency, and reproducibility in false memory research. However, the inconsistent implementation of open science practices may still challenge the verification, replication, and interpretation of research findings. Our study underscores the need for a comprehensive adoption of open science to improve research reliability and validity substantially, fostering trust and credibility in psychology.
    Keywords:  Open science; meta-analysis; pre-registration; replication; study quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2387108
  19. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024 ;pii: 8149. [Epub ahead of print]13 8149
    Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint.
    Juliet Nabyonga-Orem, James Avoka Asamani, Olushayo Olu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8149
  20. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 01. 112(2): 64-66
    Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's manuscript resubmission deadlines: creating accountability structures for our authors.
    Alexander J Carroll, Jill T Boruff, Michelle Kraft.
      The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) has made the decision to change our "revise-at-will" policy to instead adopt firmer deadlines for manuscript resubmissions. Beginning with this issue, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revise and resubmit" decision must be resubmitted within two months of the editorial decision. Likewise, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revisions required" decision must be resubmitted within one month of the editorial decision. This editorial discusses JMLA's experience using a "revise-at-will" policy and outlines some anticipated benefits of the new resubmission deadlines.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1902
  21. Science. 2024 Aug 09. 385(6709): 581
    Science should save all, not just some.
    Madhukar Pai, Seye Abimbola.
      Discussions around global equity and justice in science typically emphasize the lack of diversity in the editorial boards of scientific journals, inequities in authorship, "parachute research," dominance of the English language, or scientific awards garnered predominantly by Global North scientists. These inequities are pervasive and must be redressed. But there is a bigger problem. The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support. This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads2151
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.