bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–09–15
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The human costs of the research-assessment culture.
  2. What we should learn from pandemic publishing.
  3. Do infographics 'spin' the findings of health and medical research?
  4. ChatGPT does make up scientific references: should it be currently renamed CheatGPT?
  5. New virus-genome website seeks to make sharing sequences easy and fair.
  6. Open access is shaping scientific communication.
  7. Prerequisite for reproducible science: a call to embrace code sharing.
  8. Open access publishing: the proliferation of journals of questionable quality.
  9. Disclosing the fates of rejected papers: A possible measure to enhance review ability.
  10. Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.
  11. Duplicated phrases in peer review draw scrutiny.
  12. Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
  13. A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.
  14. Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study.
  15. Basics of Writing Original Research Papers.
  16. Scholarly Writing: Preparing Your Work for a Successful Publication.
  17. How Communications Psychology editors evaluate your research.
  18. The ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines: Importance and Full Adoption by AALAS Journals.
  19. Editorial Commentary: Experts in Shoulder Surgery Do Not Consistently Detect Artificial Intelligence-Generated Scientific Abstracts.
  20. Letter to the Editor: A note on language and academic writing.
  21. Publication patterns of graduates from a DNP program with submission of a manuscript as a degree requirement.
  22. Correction to 'The future of JSR: Hybrid or Open Access publishing, and launch of a sister journal?'
  1. Nature. 2024 Sep;633(8029): 481-484
    The human costs of the research-assessment culture.
    Rachel Brazil.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Institutions; Peer review; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02922-4
  2. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Sep 09.
    What we should learn from pandemic publishing.
    Satyaki Sikdar, Sara Venturini, Marie-Laure Charpignon, Sagar Kumar, Francesco Rinaldi, Francesco Tudisco, Santo Fortunato, Maimuna S Majumder.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01969-7
  3. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Sep 12. pii: bmjebm-2024-113033. [Epub ahead of print]
    Do infographics 'spin' the findings of health and medical research?
    Ryan Muller, Giovanni Ferreira, Geronimo Bejarano, Andrew R Gamble, James Kirk, James Sindone, Joshua R Zadro.
       OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of 'spin', and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin.
    DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study.
    DATA SOURCE: Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database).
    ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome.
    MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts).
    EXPOSURES: Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text.
    RESULTS: 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found.
    CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics.
    Keywords:  Health; Methods; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033
  4. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2024 Sep 10.
    ChatGPT does make up scientific references: should it be currently renamed CheatGPT?
    Gerd Mikus.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03758-7
  5. Nature. 2024 Sep 09.
    New virus-genome website seeks to make sharing sequences easy and fair.
    Smriti Mallapaty.
      
    Keywords:  Genomics; Research data; Virology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02864-x
  6. Science. 2024 Sep 13. 385(6714): 1170-1172
    Open access is shaping scientific communication.
    Mark J McCabe, Frank Mueller-Langer.
      Funders and publishers should roll out policies in ways to support their evaluation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp8882
  7. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2024 Oct;29 100472
    Prerequisite for reproducible science: a call to embrace code sharing.
    Arkaprabha Gun, Tushar Garg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100472
  8. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Sep 02. pii: ezae320. [Epub ahead of print]66(3):
    Open access publishing: the proliferation of journals of questionable quality.
    Tom Treasure.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae320
  9. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Sep 08.
    Disclosing the fates of rejected papers: A possible measure to enhance review ability.
    Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  acceptance; editor; journal; rejection; reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15902
  10. R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Sep;11(9): 240612
    Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.
    Adrian Barnett, Liz Allen, Adrian Aldcroft, Timothy L Lash, Victoria McCreanor.
      The peer review process is used throughout science but has often been criticized for being inconsistent, with decisions dependent on the peers who did the reviewing. Much of the decision inconsistency arises from the differences between reviewers in terms of their expertise, training and experience. Another source of uncertainty is within reviewers as they must make a single recommendation (e.g. 'Accept'), when they may have wavered between two (e.g. 'Accept' or 'Reject'). We estimated the size of within-reviewer uncertainty using post-review surveys at three journals. We asked reviewers to think outside the recommendation they gave (e.g. 'Accept') and assign percentages to all other recommendations (e.g. 'Major revision'). Reviewers who were certain could assign 100% to one recommendation. Twenty-three per cent of reviewers reported no uncertainty (95% confidence interval 19-27%). Women were associated with more uncertainty at one journal, and protocol papers were associated with more uncertainty at one journal. Reviewers commonly experience some uncertainty when peer-reviewing journal articles. This uncertainty is part of the variability in peer reviewers' recommendation.
    Keywords:  decision-making; peer review; uncertainty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240612
  11. Science. 2024 Sep 13. 385(6714): 1150
    Duplicated phrases in peer review draw scrutiny.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Hundreds of papers bear signs of reviewers using templates for personal gain.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt0784
  12. F1000Res. 2024 ;13 921
    Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
    Saida Hidouri, Hela Kamoun, Sana Salah, Anis Jellad, Helmi Ben Saad.
       Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.
    Methods: Opinion article.
    Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.
    Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.
    Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Manuscript evaluation; Manuscript review process; Peer assessment; Peer review; Research quality; Review; Reviewer comments; Revision guidelines; manuscript assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154614.1
  13. J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 31. pii: 5181. [Epub ahead of print]13(17):
    A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.
    Gabriele Zambonin Mazzoleni, Andrea Bergna, Francesca Buffone, Andrea Sacchi, Serena Misseroni, Marco Tramontano, Fulvio Dal Farra.
      Background/Objectives: In osteopathy, it becomes necessary to produce high-quality evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. The aim of this meta-research study is to assess the reporting quality of RCTs published in the osteopathic field. Methods: The protocol was preliminarily registered on the "Open Science Framework (OSF)" website. For reporting, we considered the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We included all the RCTs, published between 2011 and 2023, investigating the effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) in any possible condition. The search process was conducted on four major biomedical databases including PubMed, Central, Scopus and Embase. A data extraction form was implemented to collect all relevant information. The completeness of reporting was calculated as the percentage of adherence to the CONSORT checklist; the Cochrane ROB 2 tool was considered to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the following five major domains: randomization (D1), interventions (D2), missing data (D3), outcome measurement (D4), selective reporting (D5). Results: A total of 131 studies were included and the overall adherence was 57%, with the worst section being "other information" (42%). Studies with a lower RoB showed higher adherence to the CONSORT. The "results" section presented the highest differences as follows: D1 (-36.7%), D2 (-27.2%), D3 (-21.5%) and D5 (-25.5%). Significant correlations were also found between the preliminary protocol registration, higher journal quartile, publication in hybrid journals and the completeness of reporting (β: 19.22, CI: 14.45-24.00, p < 0.001; β: 5.41; CI: 2.80-8.02, p ≤ 0.001; β: 5.64, CI: 1.06-10.23, p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusions: The adherence to the CONSORT checklist in osteopathic RCTs is lacking. An association was found between a lower completeness of reporting and a higher RoB, a good journal ranking, publication in hybrid journals and a prospective protocol registration. Journals and authors should adopt all the strategies to adhere to reporting guidelines to guarantee generalization of the results arising from RCTs.
    Keywords:  RCT; checklist; meta-research; osteopathic manipulative treatment; osteopathy; randomized controlled trial; reporting; research quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175181
  14. Int Endod J. 2024 Sep 10.
    Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study.
    Giorgos N Tzanetakis, Xenos Petridis, Aleksandar Jakovljevic, Despina Koletsi, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Henry F Duncan, Paul M H Dummer.
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics.
    METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA-ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item-specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated.
    RESULTS: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non-registered reviews.
    CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.
    Keywords:  Scoping review; endodontics; meta‐research study; registration practices; reporting quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.14141
  15. Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2024 ;67(3): 193-194
    Basics of Writing Original Research Papers.
    Almıla Erol.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29399/npa.28893
  16. J Pediatr Health Care. 2024 Sep-Oct;38(5):pii: S0891-5245(24)00147-0. [Epub ahead of print]38(5): 637-638
    Scholarly Writing: Preparing Your Work for a Successful Publication.
    Donna Hallas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2024.06.004
  17. Commun Psychol. 2023 Aug 29. 1(1): 13
    How Communications Psychology editors evaluate your research.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00014-z
  18. Comp Med. 2024 Sep 07.
    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-CM-24-061
  19. Arthroscopy. 2024 Sep 05. pii: S0749-8063(24)00641-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Editorial Commentary: Experts in Shoulder Surgery Do Not Consistently Detect Artificial Intelligence-Generated Scientific Abstracts.
    Mikalyn T DeFoor, Andrew J Sheean.
      There has been an exponential growth in the number of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)-related publications in recent years. For example, in shoulder and elbow surgery, there was a 6-fold increase in the number of publications between 2018 and 2021. AI shows potential to improve diagnostic precision, generate precise surgical templates, direct personalized treatment plans, and reduce administrative costs. However, while AI and ML technologies have the ability to positively impact biomedical research, it should be closely monitored and used with extreme caution in the realm of research and scientific writing. Of concern, current large language models raise concerns regarding veracity of AI-generated content, copyright and ownership infringement, fabricated references, lack of in-text citation, plagiarism, and questions of authorship. Recent research shows that even the most experienced surgeons are unable to consistently detect AI-generated scientific writing. Of note, AI detection software is more adept in this role. AI should be used with caution in the development and production of scholarly work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.08.038
  20. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2024 Sep 12. pii: S1939-8654(24)00492-2. [Epub ahead of print]55(4): 101761
    Letter to the Editor: A note on language and academic writing.
    Carly McCuaig, Lene Andersen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101761
  21. J Prof Nurs. 2024 Sep-Oct;54:pii: S8755-7223(24)00115-7. [Epub ahead of print]54 194-197
    Publication patterns of graduates from a DNP program with submission of a manuscript as a degree requirement.
    Julee Briscoe Waldrop, Marion E Broome.
       BACKGROUND: Nurses who earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree are expected to make essential contributions to the scholarship of practice and the improvement of health care outcomes. The DNP program at Duke University School of Nursing requires that students demonstrate scholarship competence by writing a manuscript based on their DNP project and submitting it for publication.
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to share an evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.
    METHODS: The authors used a bibliometric study design.
    RESULTS: This study demonstrates that manuscripts authored by students based on the DNP projects they conduct while earning their DNP degree can be published and are cited by other scholars. Additionally, the majority of these authors continue to publish scholarly work in the nursing and broader health-focused literature after they graduate.
    CONCLUSION: Nurses who developed and submit manuscripts for publication based on their DNP project contribute to the literature and evidence base for practice.
    Keywords:  Citations; Doctor of nursing practice; Graduate nursing education; Publication; Scholarship; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.06.021
  22. J Sleep Res. 2024 Sep 10. e14321
    Correction to 'The future of JSR: Hybrid or Open Access publishing, and launch of a sister journal?'
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.14321
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.