bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–09–08
forty-four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The "enshittification" of online information services obligates rigorous management of scientific journals.
  2. Authorship: Ethical and Unethical Behaviors, An Old or New Problem?
  3. Code sharing in ecology and evolution increases citation rates but remains uncommon.
  4. Sharing Is Caring? International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology Review and Recommendations for Sharing Programming Code.
  5. Unveiling the Hidden Menace: A Topic Modeling Analysis of Hijacked Medical Journals.
  6. Publishing nightmare: a researcher's quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized.
  7. Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction.
  8. Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape.
  9. Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.
  10. The rise and rise of predatory journals and the risks to clinical practice, health and careers: the APAME 2024 Sydney declaration on predatory or pseudo journals and publishers.
  11. [Translated article] The role of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: perspectives from hospital pharmacy.
  12. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: What are the ethical boundaries? - A Reflection inspired by the myth of Prometheus.
  13. Generative AI in medical writing: co-author or tool?
  14. Some Reservations Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Publications.
  15. Comparing ChatGPT's ability to write and review papers: then what?
  16. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing.
  17. Is perfect prompting possible for chatbots? In Reply to: Comparing ChatGPT's ability between writing versus reviewing papers: Then what?
  18. Reviewer Experience Detecting and Judging Human Versus Artificial Intelligence Content: The Stroke Journal Essay Contest.
  19. Artificial intelligence and the future of scientific publication.
  20. Preserving the human voice: A plea for regulating ChatGPT use in Correspondence and Opinion writing.
  21. A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education.
  22. Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice.
  23. Revisiting the Why of Peer Review: Sustainability of the Current System.
  24. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
  25. How can I publish open access when I can't afford the fees?
  26. Readership Awareness Series - Paper 13: Key Concepts of Translational Research.
  27. Ten tips for delivering excellent scientific presentations.
  28. Reducing publication bias with Registered Reports.
  29. Transparency of my results. How to deposit my study data in an open access repository?
  30. Audio long read: So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it?
  31. Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
  32. The OHStat guidelines for reporting observational studies and clinical trials in oral health research: manuscript checklist.
  33. The ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines: Importance and Full Adoption by AALAS Journals.
  34. What Type of Review is Yours?
  35. New Requirements in the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Neurology to Foster Greater Transparency.
  36. The impact factor: The ubiquitous metric in evaluating scientific journals.
  37. Author language and communication preferences, and familiarity with global publication guidelines, for English-language industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific: insights from a cross-sectional survey.
  38. Transforming researchers into writers through a series of semi-structured writing retreats: a mixed methods study.
  39. What I Have Learned in the Last 24 Years Being Editor-in-Chief.
  40. Measuring journal impact.
  41. A note from the Editor in Chief of JDS Communications: The challenge of brevity for authors and reviewers.
  42. The card game of publish or perish: a satirical approach to the reality of academic publishing.
  43. 170th anniversary of Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
  44. Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología.
  1. J Sci Med Sport. 2024 Aug 27. pii: S1440-2440(24)00493-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    The "enshittification" of online information services obligates rigorous management of scientific journals.
    Toomas Timpka.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2024.08.208
  2. J Pediatr Health Care. 2024 Sep 03. pii: S0891-5245(24)00236-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Authorship: Ethical and Unethical Behaviors, An Old or New Problem?
    Donna Hallas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2024.08.004
  3. Ecol Evol. 2024 Aug;14(8): e70030
    Code sharing in ecology and evolution increases citation rates but remains uncommon.
    Brian Maitner, Paul Efren Santos Andrade, Luna Lei, Jamie Kass, Hannah L Owens, George C G Barbosa, Brad Boyle, Matiss Castorena, Brian J Enquist, Xiao Feng, Daniel S Park, Andrea Paz, Gonzalo Pinilla-Buitrago, Cory Merow, Adam Wilson.
      Biologists increasingly rely on computer code to collect and analyze their data, reinforcing the importance of published code for transparency, reproducibility, training, and a basis for further work. Here, we conduct a literature review estimating temporal trends in code sharing in ecology and evolution publications since 2010, and test for an influence of code sharing on citation rate. We find that code is rarely published (only 6% of papers), with little improvement over time. We also found there may be incentives to publish code: Publications that share code have tended to be low-impact initially, but accumulate citations faster, compensating for this deficit. Studies that additionally meet other Open Science criteria, open-access publication, or data sharing, have still higher citation rates, with publications meeting all three criteria (code sharing, data sharing, and open access publication) tending to have the most citations and highest rate of citation accumulation.
    Keywords:  R software; code sharing; open access; open data; open science; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.70030
  4. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2024 Sep;33(9): e5856
    Sharing Is Caring? International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology Review and Recommendations for Sharing Programming Code.
    John Tazare, Shirley V Wang, Rosa Gini, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Peter Arlett, Daniel R Morales Leaver, Caroline Morton, John Logie, Jennifer Popovic, Katherine Donegan, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Ian Douglas, Anna Schultze.
       PURPOSE: There is increasing recognition of the importance of transparency and reproducibility in scientific research. This study aimed to quantify the extent to which programming code is publicly shared in pharmacoepidemiology, and to develop a set of recommendations on this topic.
    METHODS: We conducted a literature review identifying all studies published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (PDS) between 2017 and 2022. Data were extracted on the frequency and types of programming code shared, and other key open science practices (clinical codelist sharing, data sharing, study preregistration, and stated use of reporting guidelines and preprinting). We developed six recommendations for investigators who choose to share code and gathered feedback from members of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).
    RESULTS: Programming code sharing by articles published in PDS ranged from 1.8% in 2017 to 9.5% in 2022. It was more prevalent among articles with a methodological focus, simulation studies, and papers which also shared record-level data.
    CONCLUSION: Programming code sharing is rare but increasing in pharmacoepidemiology studies published in PDS. We recommend improved reporting of whether code is shared and how available code can be accessed. When sharing programming code, we recommend the use of permanent digital identifiers, appropriate licenses, and, where possible, adherence to good software practices around the provision of metadata and documentation, computational reproducibility, and data privacy.
    Keywords:  open science; pharmacoepidemiology; programming code sharing; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5856
  5. Adv Pharm Bull. 2024 Jul;14(2): 255-261
    Unveiling the Hidden Menace: A Topic Modeling Analysis of Hijacked Medical Journals.
    Mehdi Dadkhah, Mihály Hegedűs, Prema Nedungadi, Raghu Raman, Lóránt Dénes Dávid.
       Purpose: Nowadays, many studies discuss scholarly publishing and associated challenges, but the problem of hijacked journals has been neglected. Hijacked journals are cloned websites that mimic original journals but are managed by cybercriminals. The present study uses a topic modeling approach to analyze published papers in hijacked versions of medical journals.
    Methods: A total of 3384 papers were downloaded from 21 hijacked journals in the medical domain and analyzed by topic modeling algorithm.
    Results: Results indicate that hijacked versions of medical journals are published in most fields of the medical domain and typically respect the primary domain of the original journal.
    Conclusion: The academic world is faced with the third-generation of hijacked journals, and their detection may be more complex than common ones. The usage of artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool to deal with the phenomenon.
    Keywords:  Hijacked journals; Medicine; Predatory journals; Science integrity; Topic modeling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.34172/apb.2024.029
  6. Nature. 2024 Sep 04.
    Publishing nightmare: a researcher's quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized.
    Dan Garisto.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethics; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02554-8
  7. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024 Jul 06. pii: S1472-6483(24)00555-8. [Epub ahead of print]49(5): 104366
    Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction.
    Sabrina Minetto, Domenico Pisaturo, Greta Chiara Cermisoni, Valeria Stella Vanni, Luca Pagliardini, Enrico Papaleo, Vincenzo Berghella, Ben W Mol, Alessandra Alteri.
       RESEARCH QUESTION: Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field?
    DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study.
    RESULTS: The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases.
    CONCLUSIONS: Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.
    Keywords:  Article retraction; Citations; MAR; Medically assisted reproduction; Research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104366
  8. Conserv Biol. 2024 Sep 03. e14369
    Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape.
    Natalie Yoh, Mukhlish Jamal Musa Holle, Jasmin Willis, Lauren F Rudd, Iain M Fraser, Diogo Veríssimo.
      Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.
    Keywords:  academic societies; acceso abierto; article processing charges; discrete choice experiment; double‐blind review; experimento de elección discreta; factor de impacto; impact factor; open‐access; peer review; preferencias editoriales; publishing preferences; revisión doble ciego; revisión por pares; sociedades académicas; tasas de tramitación de artículos; 人类与野生动物冲突; 动物群内互动; 新型生态系统; 结构方程建模; 资源分配; 野生动物共存; 顶级捕食者
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14369
  9. Eur J Orthod. 2024 Oct 01. pii: cjae039. [Epub ahead of print]46(5):
    Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.
    Michael P Maroulakos, Dalya Al-Moghrabi, Isabel Fleischmann, Nikolaos Pandis, Padhraig S Fleming.
       AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship.
    METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics.
    RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001).
    LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature.
    CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.
    Keywords:  levels of evidence; orthodontic research publishing; predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjae039
  10. Med J Aust. 2024 Sep 02. 221(5): 248-250
    The rise and rise of predatory journals and the risks to clinical practice, health and careers: the APAME 2024 Sydney declaration on predatory or pseudo journals and publishers.
    Nicholas J Talley, Virginia Barbour, José Florencio F Lapeña, Peter L Munk, Wilfred C G Peh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52410
  11. Farm Hosp. 2024 Aug 30. pii: S1130-6343(24)00125-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    [Translated article] The role of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: perspectives from hospital pharmacy.
    Vicente Gimeno-Ballester, Cristina Trigo-Vicente.
      The article examines the impact of artificial intelligence on scientific writing, with a particular focus on its application in hospital pharmacy. It analyses artificial intelligence tools that enhance information retrieval, literature analysis, writing quality, and manuscript drafting. Chatbots like Consensus, along with platforms such as Scite and SciSpace, enable precise searches in scientific databases, providing evidence-based responses and references. SciSpace facilitates the generation of comparative tables and the formulation of queries regarding studies, while ResearchRabbit maps the scientific literature to identify trends. Tools like DeepL and ProWritingAid improve writing quality by correcting grammatical, stylistic, and plagiarism errors. A.R.I.A. enhances reference management, and Jenny AI assists in overcoming writer's block. Python libraries such as langchain enable advanced semantic searches and the creation of agents. Despite their benefits, artificial intelligence raises ethical concerns including biases, misinformation, and plagiarism. The importance of responsible use and critical review by experts is emphasised. In hospital pharmacy, artificial intelligence can enhance efficiency and precision in research and scientific communication. Pharmacists can use these tools to stay updated, enhance the quality of their publications, optimise information management, and facilitate clinical decision-making. In conclusion, artificial intelligence is a powerful tool for hospital pharmacy, provided it is used responsibly and ethically.
    Keywords:  AI tools; Artificial intelligence; Chatbots; Escritura científica; Ethics; Farmacia Hospitalaria; Herramientas inteligencia Artificial; Hospital pharmacy; Inteligencia Artificial; Investigación; Publicación científica; Research; Scientific publications; Scientific writing; Ética
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farma.2024.07.009
  12. Colomb Med (Cali). 2023 Oct-Dec;54(4):54(4): e7005954
    Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: What are the ethical boundaries? - A Reflection inspired by the myth of Prometheus.
    Raúl Alberto Aguilera-Eguía, Ángel Roco Videla, Héctor Fuentes-Barria, Cristian Yáñez-Baeza.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i4.5954
  13. Br J Gen Pract. 2024 Mar;74(740): 126-127
    Generative AI in medical writing: co-author or tool?
    Richard Armitage.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp24X736605
  14. J Craniofac Surg. 2024 Aug 29.
    Some Reservations Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Publications.
    İlhan Bahşi, Yusuf Muhammed Durna, Mustafa Said Tekin, Yaşar Kemal Duymaz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000010550
  15. Croat Med J. 2024 Aug 31. 65(4): 397-398
    Comparing ChatGPT's ability to write and review papers: then what?
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
  16. Sao Paulo Med J. 2024 Sep 02. pii: S1516-31802024000500100. [Epub ahead of print]142(5): e20241425
    Artificial intelligence in scientific writing.
    Isabele Alves Chirichela, Alessandro Wasum Mariani, Paulo Manuel Pêgo-Fernandes.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2024.1425.26062024
  17. Croat Med J. 2024 Aug 31. 65(4): 399
    Is perfect prompting possible for chatbots? In Reply to: Comparing ChatGPT's ability between writing versus reviewing papers: Then what?
    Gültekin Kadi, Mehmet Ali Aslaner.
      
  18. Stroke. 2024 Sep 03.
    Reviewer Experience Detecting and Judging Human Versus Artificial Intelligence Content: The Stroke Journal Essay Contest.
    Gisele S Silva, Rohan Khera, Lee H Schwamm.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) now produce human-like general text and images. LLMs' ability to generate persuasive scientific essays that undergo evaluation under traditional peer review has not been systematically studied. To measure perceptions of quality and the nature of authorship, we conducted a competitive essay contest in 2024 with both human and AI participants. Human authors and 4 distinct LLMs generated essays on controversial topics in stroke care and outcomes research. A panel of Stroke Editorial Board members (mostly vascular neurologists), blinded to author identity and with varying levels of AI expertise, rated the essays for quality, persuasiveness, best in topic, and author type. Among 34 submissions (22 human and 12 LLM) scored by 38 reviewers, human and AI essays received mostly similar ratings, though AI essays were rated higher for composition quality. Author type was accurately identified only 50% of the time, with prior LLM experience associated with improved accuracy. In multivariable analyses adjusted for author attributes and essay quality, only persuasiveness was independently associated with odds of a reviewer assigning AI as author type (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.16]; P=0.01). In conclusion, a group of experienced editorial board members struggled to distinguish human versus AI authorship, with a bias against best in topic for essays judged to be AI generated. Scientific journals may benefit from educating reviewers on the types and uses of AI in scientific writing and developing thoughtful policies on the appropriate use of AI in authoring manuscripts.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; neurologists; peer review; stroke; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.045012
  19. Eur J Emerg Med. 2024 Oct 01. 31(5): 301-302
    Artificial intelligence and the future of scientific publication.
    Howard Bauchner.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001164
  20. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2024 Sep 04.
    Preserving the human voice: A plea for regulating ChatGPT use in Correspondence and Opinion writing.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      Correspondence and Opinion provide a 'human voice,' serving as the captivating elements that grab readers' attention and stimulate contemplation. The extent of ChatGPT's involvement in writing raises controversy. We tested ChatGPT's capability to generate readable Correspondence or Opinion, producing an English Opinion from a Japanese abstract. We also tasked ChatGPT with creating Correspondence and Reply for an English→German translated Opinion. Opinion, Correspondence, and Reply output here were found to be readable and reasonable. While preliminary, these results suggest that ChatGPT can generate such articles, prompting serious concern about AI taking over the 'human voice.' Some regulatory measures may be needed.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; Correspondence; Opinion; manuscript; paper writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13877
  21. Adv Physiol Educ. 2024 Sep 05.
    A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education.
    Thad E Wilson, Lisa M Harrison-Bernard.
      The dissemination of discipline-focused educational scholarship advances theory and stimulates pedagogical application. The aim of Advances in Physiology Education is to publish manuscripts that advance knowledge and inform educators in the field. This primer is tailored for individuals new to manuscript reviewing, early in their careers, or experienced in reviewing research but not educational manuscripts. Peer reviewing for basic and applied science is akin to evaluating research questions and rigor in teaching and learning studies, with differences in approach and analysis similar to those between biophysics and molecular physiology or cell and integrated physiology. Our purpose is to provide an overview of the review process and expectations. The submission and peer review process involves several steps: authors submit a manuscript, the Editor assigns an Associate Editor, who then assigns peer Reviewers. Reviewers are contacted via email and can accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses, then independently submit comments and recommendations to the Associate Editor. After review, the Associate Editor collects and weighs Reviewers' comments, sometimes garners additional reviews and input, to make a recommendation to the Editor. The Editor reviews the process, comments, and recommendations to render a final decision. Both authors and Reviewers receive an email with the decision. The editorial staff assist with communication and help track the overall process. Peer review is integral to scientific publishing, ensuring quality and rigor, and reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility of all in the scientific community.
    Keywords:  editors; education; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00127.2024
  22. PRiMER. 2024 ;8 42
    Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice.
    Kendall M Campbell, Edgar Figueroa, Donna Baluchi, José E Rodríguez.
      Peer review is primarily thought of as the process used to determine whether manuscripts are published in medical or other academic journals. While a publication may be one outcome of peer review, this article shares a model of 4 Ps to remind faculty of some important additional applications of peer review. The 4 Ps are publication, presentation, promotion, and practice. The medical literature offers few reasons why faculty should get involved in peer review. In this article, we define peer review, illustrate the role of peer review in four important processes, describe how the volume of material to review has changed over time, and share how participation in these processes promotes career advancement. Understanding the peer review process and its benefits can encourage professionals to participate in peer review in any of the four Ps as they recognize the benefits to their discipline and their career.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.148162
  23. Int J Older People Nurs. 2024 Sep;19(5): e12642
    Revisiting the Why of Peer Review: Sustainability of the Current System.
    Sameh Eltaybani.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12642
  24. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024 Sep 02. 15562646241276237
    Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
    Isaac O Dipeolu, Douglas R Wassenaar.
      Journal editors instruct authors to describe human participant protections in original research reports. However, little is known about African biomedical journal authors' adherence to such journal editors' instructions. This study investigated changes in editors' instructions to authors and authors' reporting of research ethics information in selected African biomedical journals between 2008 and 2017. Twelve selected journal websites and online articles were reviewed in Eastern, Southern, and Western African [ESWA] countries. A pre-tested schema and a checklist were used to collect data from journal websites and articles published in 2008 and 2017, and the data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Half of the journals requested prospective authors to disclose ethics approval and related issues in their manuscripts between 2008 and 2017. There was a significant increase in instructions to authors regarding information on the protection of research participants within this period; more authors complied with these requirements in 2017 than in 2007.
    Keywords:  African biomedical journals; human participants protection; instruction to authors; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241276237
  25. Nature. 2024 Sep 02.
    How can I publish open access when I can't afford the fees?
    Nikki Forrester.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02849-w
  26. Ocul Surf. 2024 Aug 30. pii: S1542-0124(24)00093-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Readership Awareness Series - Paper 13: Key Concepts of Translational Research.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2024.08.013
  27. Clin Exp Optom. 2024 Sep;107(7): 687-690
    Ten tips for delivering excellent scientific presentations.
    Nathan Efron.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2022.2139593
  28. Nat Neurosci. 2024 Sep;27(9): 1635
    Reducing publication bias with Registered Reports.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01762-9
  29. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2024 Aug 31. pii: S2173-5077(24)00194-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Transparency of my results. How to deposit my study data in an open access repository?
    Raul Muñoz Garcia, Guillem Cebrián Grifol.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2024.07.006
  30. Nature. 2024 Aug 30.
    Audio long read: So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it?
    Max Kozlov, Benjamin Thompson.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02714-w
  31. BMC Neurol. 2024 Sep 05. 24(1): 321
    Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
    Andrew V Tran, John K Stadler, Zachary Ernst, Caleb A Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin K Hughes, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: Neurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration.
    METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal's Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023.
    RESULTS: Of the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%).
    CONCLUSIONS: While many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.
    Keywords:  Adherence; Clinical Trial Registration; Instructions for authors; Reporting guidelines; Standardization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-024-03839-1
  32. Angle Orthod. 2024 Sep 01. 94(5): 479-487
    The OHStat guidelines for reporting observational studies and clinical trials in oral health research: manuscript checklist.
    Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research
      Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.
    Keywords:  Dentistry; Editorial policies; Evidence-based dentistry; Medical writing; Peer review; Reporting guidelines; Research documentation; Statistical thinking
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2319/OHStat_Guidelines.1
  33. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2024 Sep 05.
    The ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines: Importance and Full Adoption by AALAS Journals.
    Mark A Suckow, Michael T Fallon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-24-083
  34. Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Aug;35(8): 1559-1560
    What Type of Review is Yours?
    Tony Bazi, Sharif I M F Ismail.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05909-x
  35. Neurology. 2024 Oct 08. 103(7): e209909
    New Requirements in the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Neurology to Foster Greater Transparency.
    Andreas Ziegler, Misha Eliasziw, Virginia J Howard, Wesley T Kerr, Amber Salter, Andrea L C Schneider, José G Merino.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209909
  36. Work. 2024 Aug 29.
    The impact factor: The ubiquitous metric in evaluating scientific journals.
    Karen Jacobs.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-246016
  37. Curr Med Res Opin. 2024 Aug 29. 1-11
    Author language and communication preferences, and familiarity with global publication guidelines, for English-language industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific: insights from a cross-sectional survey.
    Alice Carruthers, Henry Chung, Rebecca Crawford, Joyce H Y Lee, Jonathan Lee.
       OBJECTIVE: To understand current practices and challenges for collecting author feedback for English-language, industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the implications for adherence to international publication guidelines.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey of industry ('internal') authors (17 questions) and publication professionals (18 questions) supporting publications in APAC, conducted between November 18 and December 4, 2022.
    RESULTS: Overall, 142 survey responses were received, of which 94 (66%) were complete and included in the analysis (33 internal authors, 61 publication professionals). Almost half (45%) of internal authors preferred a non-English language for providing feedback on publications, and most (70%) would use this language whenever possible. Internal authors favored written (91%) versus spoken (73%) English, and email was the preferred mode of communication. Publication professionals said they have observed qualitative differences when authors provide feedback in a preferred non-English language versus English. Many agreed that authors tend to provide more substantive or critical feedback when they can respond in their preferred non-English language. Internal authors had low self-assessed familiarity with key publication guidelines, while most publication professionals had a moderate or high self-assessed familiarity. The main barriers to application of publication guidelines, as rated by publication professionals, were that external authors in APAC are not familiar with global publication guidelines and do not always provide feedback/responses in writing.
    CONCLUSION: It is important to consider the diverse language, cultural, and communication preferences of individuals involved in English-language publication development in APAC, and to ensure that authors are aware of current publication guidelines and best practices.
    Keywords:  Asia; Oceania; communication; good publication practice; language; pharmaceutical industry; surveys and questionnaires
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2396532
  38. BMC Nurs. 2024 Sep 02. 23(1): 611
    Transforming researchers into writers through a series of semi-structured writing retreats: a mixed methods study.
    James Bonnamy, Lyndal Bugeja, Julia Morphet, Philip L Russo, Gabrielle Brand.
       AIM: To evaluate the experience and effectiveness of six semi-structured writing retreats on research publication quantity and quality for nursing and midwifery academics and research students.
    BACKGROUND: Research publications are necessary to develop a track record to gain competitive funding and for promotion. Publications also improve the standing of universities because their performance is measured in-part by research outputs. However, there are challenges to writing for publication, especially for new nursing and midwifery academics and research students. Therefore, four of the authors initiated semi-structured writing retreats to support nursing and midwifery academics and research students to overcome these challenges.
    METHODS: A mixed methods exploratory sequential design consisting of two distinct phases and data collection methods. In phase one, an online evaluation was administered to collect participant experiences which were then analysed using content analysis. In phase two, data about the quantity and quality of publications arising from each retreat was collected, and descriptive statistics performed.
    RESULTS: A total of 70 participants responded to the online evaluation. Qualitative analysis of their responses demonstrated that the writing retreats were highly valued as they offered a collaborative environment with dedicated time to focus on writing for publication. Quantitative analysis identified 81 publications were planned over the six writing retreats. Of these, 60 have been published, 5 are under review, 5 have not yet been submitted, and 11 were abandoned.
    CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrated that our six semi-structured writing retreats enabled and developed nursing and midwifery academics and research students writing for publication. Semi-structured writing retreats are a research investment that enabled preparation of high-quality publications by offering protected time to write, expert peer review and collaboration and networking opportunities.
    Keywords:  Research outputs; Researcher development; Semi-structured; Writing for publication; Writing retreat; Writing workshop
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02261-9
  39. JAMA Pediatr. 2024 Sep 03.
    What I Have Learned in the Last 24 Years Being Editor-in-Chief.
    Frederick P Rivara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.3288
  40. Am J Vet Res. 2024 Aug 26. pii: ajvr.85.09.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]85(9):
    Measuring journal impact.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.85.09.editorial
  41. JDS Commun. 2024 Jul;5(4): 271
    A note from the Editor in Chief of JDS Communications: The challenge of brevity for authors and reviewers.
    Jessica A A McArt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2024-0609
  42. Croat Med J. 2024 Aug 31. 65(4): 396
    The card game of publish or perish: a satirical approach to the reality of academic publishing.
    Marko Lucijanić.
      
  43. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024 Aug 30.
    170th anniversary of Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
    Andrzej Grzybowski, Katarzyna Pawlikowska- Łagód, Martin Rohrbach.
      The year 2024 marks the 170th anniversary of the journal Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. The journal is the first printed journal specializing in ophthalmology, founded by Albrecht von Graefe (1828-1870) in 1854. The reason behind creating the journal was to publish useful clinical information and develop discussion and debate among ophthalmologists and vision scientists. Thanks to its diligence and appropriate selection of published content, the journal has become widely read not only among the German scientific community, but also internationally. The aim of this review article is to present the activities of Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology during the past 170 years. KEY MESSAGES : What is known Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is the oldest worldwide ophthalmology journal that in 2024 celebrates its 170th anniversary. The journal was founded by Albrecht von Graefe, and after his death continued by other giants in ophthalmology, including Ferdinand von Arlt and Franciscus Cornelius Donders. WHAT IS NEW : There were mostly male editors-in-chief, with Antonia Joussen as the first female editor-in-chief in the long journal's history. This article presents for the first time the complete list of all editors-in-chief in the 170 year long history of the journal.
    Keywords:  Albrecht von graefe; Archive für augenheilkunde; Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology; Ophthalmology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06614-7
  44. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2024 Aug 28. pii: S2341-2879(24)00207-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología.
    Luis Bachiller Carnicero.
       INTRODUCTION: The sharing of research findings through communications at congresses and publications is essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The aim was to determine the percentage of communications presented the biennial meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo, Spanish Society of Neonatology) eventually published as full-text articles in indexed peer-reviewed journals and their bibliometric characteristics.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts from the oral communications (OCs) in the 2017, 2019 and 2021 SENeo congresses. Then we searched for the authors in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. We collected data on the authors, type of OC and bibliometric characteristics.
    RESULTS: The sample included 525 OCs, and we found a publication rate of 40.38% corresponding to 212 publications, 78.8% of them in international journals. The most frequent journal of publication was Anales de Pediatría. The median and interquartile range values for the impact factor, quartile and number of citations were 2.86 (1.96-3.98), 2 (1-3) and 3 (0-7), respectively, with a remarkable increase in the impact factor for the most recent congresses. The median time elapsed to publication was 10 months (IQR, 1-23). The proportion published was higher for multicentre studies and those with a respiratory topic.
    CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of publication for OCs submitted to SENeo congresses was similar to the frequency of publication for other paediatric congresses, with an impact factor that was above the mean of the congresses under study. The proportion of publication was higher for studies with a multicentre design or a respiratory topic.
    Keywords:  Congreso; Congress; Empresas editoras; Factor de impacto de revistas; Journal impact factor; Manuscript; Manuscrito; Neonatology; Neonatología; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2024.08.001
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.