bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–08–25
25 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Scientific telephone: The cautionary tale of the global coverage of lichens.
  2. Cash for catching scientific errors.
  3. Illuminating 'the ugly side of science': fresh incentives for reporting negative results.
  4. Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis.
  5. The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists.
  6. Journal of Orthopedic Case Reports: The World's First AI-enhanced Journal.
  7. Large Language Models in Orthopaedic Publications: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
  8. To combat poor quality research, eliminate publication requirements.
  9. Scientific Publication Speed of Korean Medical Journals during the COVID-19 Era.
  10. Improving How Orthopaedic Journals Report Research Outcomes Based on Sex and Gender.
  11. Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools.
  12. Publishing papers tribally: a deviated branch of interdisciplinary research?
  13. Difficult Terrains of Research Publications Faced by Researchers: A Cross-Sectional Study.
  14. Consejos para escribir un manuscrito y publicarlo en una revista biomédica.
  15. Using a Preceptor Development Series in Writing and Publication to Improve Residency Research Manuscripts.
  16. Exploring the use of grammarly in assessing English academic writing.
  17. Readership Awareness Series - Paper 13: Key Concepts of Translational Research.
  18. Article Factors Influencing Gender Disparities in Senior Authorship of Plastic Surgery Publications.
  19. Unmasking the Process: Perils and Facilitators of Successful Publishing in Forum.
  20. Ad hominem; Author information or conflict of interest.
  21. Measuring journal impact.
  22. Editorial: Open science and methods review for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
  23. A Journal for Everyone, by Everyone: The Next Era of JACC: Case Reports.
  24. Why nuclease free water ruined my experiment (but at least it was free), or why the short dash matters.
  25. South Korean science on the global stage.
  1. Bioscience. 2024 Jul;74(7): 473-477
    Scientific telephone: The cautionary tale of the global coverage of lichens.
    Katherine H I Drotos, Douglas W Larson, R Troy McMullin.
      Scientific history has many examples of profound statements that are later found to be unsubstantiated. The consequences of such misinformation can be dire. In the present article, we present a case where an unevidenced estimate of global lichen coverage proliferated through both scientific literature and popular media. We traced this estimate to a non-peer-reviewed publication from 1987. We found 76 academic articles (collectively cited 4125 times) and 13 other academic documents citing the statistic, citation chains without source attribution, and instances where the number or context was changed. We also found the statistic 37 times in popular media, which is especially concerning, given that these media communicate science to the broader public. We demonstrate how an unevidenced statement can spread, change through time, and ultimately be repeated without demand for evidence. We hope this case unplugs the telephone and provides a cautionary tale for researchers to ensure critical evaluation of citation and communication practices.
    Keywords:  citation practices; global vegetation; science communication; terrestrial coverage
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae048
  2. Nature. 2024 Aug;632(8026): 942-943
    Cash for catching scientific errors.
    Julian Nowogrodzki.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Psychology; Research management; Scientific community; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02681-2
  3. Nature. 2024 May 08.
    Illuminating 'the ugly side of science': fresh incentives for reporting negative results.
    Rachel Brazil.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01389-7
  4. Account Res. 2024 Aug 17. 1-19
    Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis.
    Anna Abalkina.
       BACKGROUND: The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.
    METHODS: A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.
    RESULTS: Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.
    CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.
    Keywords:  Plagiarism; hijacked journals; scientific misconduct; 
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210
  5. Nature. 2024 Aug 20.
    The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01672-7
  6. J Orthop Case Rep. 2024 Aug;14(8): 1-2
    Journal of Orthopedic Case Reports: The World's First AI-enhanced Journal.
    Ashok Shyam, Neeraj Bijlani, Parag Sancheti, Vaibhav Bagaria, Amit Yerudkar, Rohan Lunawat.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2024.v14.i08.4622
  7. Orthop J Sports Med. 2024 Aug;12(8): 23259671241265705
    Large Language Models in Orthopaedic Publications: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; large language models; orthopaedic publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241265705
  8. EXCLI J. 2024 ;23 883-887
    To combat poor quality research, eliminate publication requirements.
    James Stacey Taylor.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2024-7428
  9. Healthc Inform Res. 2024 Jul;30(3): 277-285
    Scientific Publication Speed of Korean Medical Journals during the COVID-19 Era.
    Hyeonseok Seo, Yaechan Kim, Dongryeong Kim, Hanul Kang, Chansu Park, Sejin Park, Junha Kang, Janghyeog Oh, Hyunsung Kang, Mi Ah Han.
       OBJECTIVES: This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era.
    METHODS: We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19.
    RESULTS: Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals' review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Editorial Policies; Journal Article; Peer Review; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2024.30.3.277
  10. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2024 Sep;pii: S1063-4584(24)01169-5. [Epub ahead of print]32(9): 1016-1018
    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.joca.2024.04.012
  11. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 19. 39(32): e231
    Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools.
    Fatima Alnaimat, Salameh Al-Halaseh, Abdel Rahman Feras AlSamhori.
      Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)-in particular, large language models like ChatGPT-has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials-new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; ChatGPT; Data Reporting; Machine Learning; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e231
  12. Iran J Vet Res. 2024 ;25(1): 1-2
    Publishing papers tribally: a deviated branch of interdisciplinary research?
    M Kafi, H Nadgaran.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22099/IJVR.2024.49449.7264
  13. Cureus. 2024 Jul;16(7): e64787
    Difficult Terrains of Research Publications Faced by Researchers: A Cross-Sectional Study.
    Ravindran Chirukandath, Gopika Sunil, Vipin Balakrishnan, R Ashitha Menon, Soorya Gayathry P, Sumin V Sulaiman, Marius George, Keerthana Mohan, Dona Maria Joseph.
      Background The publication of scholarly work in peer-reviewed journals is a well-established method for disseminating knowledge and findings to a global audience. However, the publishing process is constantly evolving and encountering various obstacles that hinder progress. Despite a significant increase in the number of research projects undertaken, there are few studies evaluating the challenges faced by investigators in publishing their research. This study aims to identify the factors and elements that influence the publication process after the completion of research. Methods This study included 759 projects approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) from 2016 to 2021 at a tertiary care centre in South India. A list of these approved projects was analysed for overall output in terms of publication and completion. Investigators were contacted and interviewed using a validated, 15-question survey to identify various factors influencing scientific publications. Results A total of 759 projects approved by the IEC from 2016 to 2021 were analyzed. It was found that only 36.72% of studies were completed by faculty members, and the publication conversion rate was 34.24%. A single-point analysis showed a statistically significant lower conversion rate for resident articles (p = 0.032). The 15-point analysis detailed the factors influencing publication conversion, revealing that the majority of researchers publish based on academic and research interests (68.89% and 72.12%, respectively). Various deterrents to publication, such as study design, statistical analysis, journal selection, and knowledge about journal submission, were identified. Notably, 98.4% of researchers expressed a desire to publish more in the future, highlighting the importance of this study. Conclusion The study highlights areas that require attention to facilitate and augment research. It identifies the real gaps in the publication process and suggests points of intervention needed to enhance the research environment, increase publication rates, and establish demand-based research support units in the medical education sector.
    Keywords:  academics; journals; medical education; publications; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64787
  14. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Aug 19. pii: S0210-5705(24)00220-6. [Epub ahead of print] 502237
    Consejos para escribir un manuscrito y publicarlo en una revista biomédica.
    Javier P Gisbert, María Chaparro.
      Science barely exists until it is published. It is only then that the information surpasses the limits of the author and can be shared by the scientific community. Although scientific articles must follow a rigidly defined structure, there is still room to tell a fascinating story, one that clearly conveys the science and is, at the same time, enjoyable for the reader. To do this, we must use the attributes that characterize good scientific style, with simple, clear, precise, direct, rigorous, and consistent language. Authorship implies authenticity and authority, and considering a researcher as an author entails rights and responsibilities. Scientific writing is not easy, it requires patience and practice; learning to write well is a lifelong task. With the philosophy that most of the qualities required to proficiently write a scientific article depend on attitude, and can be learned and improved upon, in this manuscript we will share with the reader a series of recommendations (based on our own experiences, both positive and negative), which we consider important for writing and successfully publishing. We will focus on the so-called "original" articles (as opposed to review articles, although many of the recommendations presented are applicable to both). Our main purpose is to encourage researchers to take the necessary step and face the challenge of becoming authors of their own scientific articles and successfully publishing their research.
    Keywords:  artículo; autoría; cómo escribir; manuscrito; publicación
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502237
  15. Innov Pharm. 2024 ;15(2):
    Using a Preceptor Development Series in Writing and Publication to Improve Residency Research Manuscripts.
    Daniel Longyhore, Eric A Wright, Sarah Krahe Dombrowski, Benjamin Andrick.
      Description of the Problem: Rates of pharmacy residency research projects making it to peer review and publication are low (between two and seven percent). Little is known about the influence of preceptor development on moving projects to peer-review and publication. The Innovation: The primary objective was to describe the effect of a preceptor development series on writing and overall manuscript quality leading to submission to a peer-reviewed publisher. Three pharmacy preceptors assigned to a post-graduate year 1 residency project were enrolled in a six-week series focused on writing, peer-reviewed publishing, and advancing resident research to publication. Each preceptor was tasked with implementing development series content in their resident research mentorship. Critical Analysis: Resident project manuscripts were assessed using a previously published 34-item evaluation tool. All papers were blinded for independent evaluation by two investigators. Nine papers were evaluated: three from preceptors who participated in the development program and six from preceptors who did not participate. The mean summary scores for papers with preceptors who participated versus those who did not were 5.8 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale. Additionally, papers from preceptor participants were noted to achieve satisfactory scores on evaluation tool items 85.3% of the time versus 74.7% of the time for non-participants. Next Steps: Participation in a six-week preceptor development program on advancing resident writing and research to publication provided preceptors the tools needed to mentor higher quality manuscripts ready for publication. Residency programs may consider designing and implementing such a series to promote preceptor and resident research publication.
    Keywords:  Education; Manuscripts; Peer Review; Preceptorship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v15i2.5179
  16. Heliyon. 2024 Aug 15. 10(15): e34893
    Exploring the use of grammarly in assessing English academic writing.
    Abdallah Abu Qub'a, Mohammed Nour Abu Guba, Shehdeh Fareh.
      This study explores the extent to which Grammarly can be a reliable assessment tool for academic English writing. Ten articles published in high-status scholarly Q.1 journals and written by specialist English native speakers were used to evaluate the accuracy of Grammarly's flagged issues. The results showed that Grammarly tends to over-flag many issues resulting in many false positives; besides, it does not take into consideration optional usage in English. The study concluded that although Grammarly can identify many ambiguous instances of language use that writers would do well to review and consider for revision, it does not seem to be a reliable tool for assessing academic written English.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; Assessment; False positives; Grammarly
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34893
  17. Semin Ophthalmol. 2024 Aug 23. 1-3
    Readership Awareness Series - Paper 13: Key Concepts of Translational Research.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    Keywords:  Research; translation; translational medicine; translational research; translational science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2024.2392358
  18. Ann Plast Surg. 2024 Sep 01. 93(3): 402-403
    Article Factors Influencing Gender Disparities in Senior Authorship of Plastic Surgery Publications.
    Georgios Karamitros, Sofoklis Goulas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000003917
  19. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2024 Aug 15. 51(5): 420-421
    Unmasking the Process: Perils and Facilitators of Successful Publishing in Forum.
    Debra Lyon.
      Now in my fifth year as editor, I have gained insights into the publishing process that I was not fully aware of as an author. I would like to share some of these insights and suggestions for prospective authors considering s.
    Keywords:  authors; journal; oncology nursing science; peer review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/24.ONF.420-421
  20. N Z Med J. 2024 Aug 23. 137(1601): 82-84
    Ad hominem; Author information or conflict of interest.
    Ben Lawrence, Simon Gordon, Elizaveta Rakhmanova, William Park, Johnathan Reynecke, Frank Frizelle.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.l1601
  21. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2024 Sep 01. 262(9): 1146
    Measuring journal impact.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.262.9.1146
  22. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2024 Sep;29(3): 223-225
    Editorial: Open science and methods review for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
    Thees F Spreckelsen, Lewis W Paton.
      This editorial introduces the journal's new open data policy for original articles using quantitative data. It discusses key opportunities from data and code sharing. It further briefly sets out the new methods review that articles which use quantitative analysis will automatically undergo. With both changes we hope to strengthen our review process and contribute to a better evidence base in the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12726
  23. JACC Case Rep. 2024 Aug 07. 29(15): 102458
    A Journal for Everyone, by Everyone: The Next Era of JACC: Case Reports.
    Gilbert H L Tang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2024.102458
  24. Autophagy. 2024 Aug 19.
    Why nuclease free water ruined my experiment (but at least it was free), or why the short dash matters.
    Daniel J Klionsky.
      There are different types of punctuation marks that are referred to as dashes. These include the short dash or hyphen (-), the en dash (-) and the em dash (-). Each of these marks has a purpose, some of which I have discussed previously. In this editor's corner I am going to try to convince you of the importance of the short dash/hyphen. This is important stuff, so please bear with me. As an editor, and in the interests of scientific accuracy, I am trying to/having to correct errors involving the short dash all of the time. But I will not always be here, and I do not have a chance to edit your papers submitted to other journals (although why you would submit to another journal is an entire topic in and of itself), so it behooves you to pay attention.
    Keywords:  Autophagy; editorial frustration; grammar; hyphen
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2024.2394711
  25. Nature. 2024 Aug;632(8026): S8-S9
    South Korean science on the global stage.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02686-x
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.