bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–10–13
twenty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?
  2. Editors-in-chief publishing in dental journals: Concerns in self-publishing.
  3. Supporting open science: Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine and preprints.
  4. Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices.
  5. Public understanding of preprints: How audiences make sense of unreviewed research in the news.
  6. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency.
  7. Are Open Science Practices in Dentistry associated with higher Altmetric scores and citation rates?
  8. New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals.
  9. Editor bias and diversifying psychology: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
  10. Why Early Career Researchers Should Engage in the Peer Review Process.
  11. To reduce editor bias and increase diversity and transparency, editors must be motivated: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
  12. Peer review protection: Pish-Posh or pivotal policy?
  13. The Importance of Peer Review.
  14. On editor bias and transparency: Reply to Cowan (2024), King (2024), and Thurston and Noor (2024).
  15. Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science.
  16. What Guidance Do Violence Journals Provide for Reporting on Sexual and Gender Diversity? A Document Analysis.
  17. Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.
  18. The perilous path: reimagining promotion and tenure in African academia.
  19. Plagiarism-lessons learnt.
  20. Human- versus ChatGPT-generated abstracts: Some concerns and suggestion.
  21. The ugly phenomenon of predatory journals: what they are and how to avoid them.
  22. My paper was proved wrong. After a sleepless night, here's what I did next.
  23. Artificial Intelligence and Medical Education, Academic Writing, and Journal Policies: A Focus on Large Language Models.
  24. Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR).
  25. Ten tips for writing a brilliant PhD thesis - and enjoying the process.
  26. Safeguarding Privacy in Genome Research: A Comprehensive Framework for Authors.
  1. J Gen Physiol. 2024 Nov 04. pii: e202413654. [Epub ahead of print]156(11):
    The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?
    Thiago F A França, José Maria Monserrat.
      Scholarly publishing has been shaped by the pressure of a liquid economy to become an exercise in branding more than a vehicle for the advancement of science. The current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to make matters worse. The new generation of large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in text generation and are already being used to write papers, grants, peer review reports, code for analyses, and even perform literature reviews. Although these models can be used in positive ways, the metrics and pressures of academia, along with our dysfunctional publishing system, stimulate their indiscriminate and uncritical use to speed up research outputs. Thus, LLMs are likely to amplify the worst incentives of academia, greatly increasing the volume of scientific literature while diluting its quality. At present, no effective solutions are evident to overcome this grim scenario, and nothing short of a cultural revolution within academia will be needed to realign the practice of science with its traditional ideal of a rigorous search for truth.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.202413654
  2. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(10): e0311997
    Editors-in-chief publishing in dental journals: Concerns in self-publishing.
    Elina Nourmand, Rachel Swed, Rafael Delgado-Ruiz, Georgios Romanos.
      Editors-in-chief (EICs) have a significant amount of control over the publications that are accepted in their journals, which may result in ethical predicaments. This study investigates the potential conflict of interest of EICs from various dental journals by quantifying the number of their self-published articles during their years as EIC. Based on representation across many dental disciplines and high impact factors, 67 EICs from 19 dental journals during 1990-2023 were studied. To keep anonymity, each journal was randomly assigned a letter A-S and each editor-in-chief (EIC) was given the same letter as their journal with a random number 1-67. After gathering the years each EIC served, online library resources were searched to enumerate each EIC's lifetime publications and total self-publications during their term, excluding editorials for both counts. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the results. The results indicate that 16 EICs self-published more than the average of 23.27 articles during their term. When considering EIC tenure, a ratio of self-publications per year was calculated, averaging 2.12 publications. Twenty-two EICs authored more articles annually than the average ratio. After calculating the impact factors of each EIC from the years they serviced their journal, a total of 22 impact factors exceeded the established mean of 2.45. Lastly, when comparing the percentage of self-publications from total lifetime publications, 24 of 67 EICs were above the average. Overall, a significantly increased number of self-publications was detected, presenting potential conflicts of interest for EICs. Therefore, it remains essential to develop clear guidelines and international standards regarding the practice of EICs self-publishing in their journals during their service term.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311997
  3. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2024 Oct 08.
    Supporting open science: Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine and preprints.
    Marek Misiak, Donata Kurpas.
      This editorial outlines the issue of preprints in scholarly communication. It presents the policy regarding them in Advances in Clinical and Medical Problems and a summary of papers released as preprints and subsequently published in this journal or rejected until July 10, 2024. The introduction discusses the definition of preprint, and leading preprint servers are listed. Policies of 2 such services - Research Square and medRxiv - most frequently chosen by Adv Clin Exp Med authors are then described, followed by a broad outline of the advantages of preprints and controversies surrounding them, based on selected literature on this topic. The next section discusses the policies of most renowned medical journals and publishers regarding preprints. The preprint policy of Adv Clin Exp Med is then thoroughly explained, as well as its reasons. All papers previously released as preprints and published in this journal in 2021-2024 are presented, focusing on meaningful differences between them. Rejected papers previously released as preprints, submitted to Adv Clin Exp Med in 2022-2024, are also listed and discussed. The conclusion is that the basis for endorsing preprints in this journal is not that they benefit this journal but that they serve the scientific community as a whole and science in general by facilitating rapid dissemination of results and fostering immediate assessment of those results by other investigators and debate around them. The most justified line of action is educating authors about the benefits and problems related to preprints.
    Keywords:  open science; peer review; policy; preprints; scientific journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/193956
  4. Neurosurg Rev. 2024 Oct 08. 47(1): 750
    Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices.
    Zahin Alam, Kush Desai, Anirudh Maddali, Vijay Sivan, Rohit Prem Kumar, Geoffrey R O'Malley, Nitesh Patel.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.
    METHODS: Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.
    RESULTS: One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Fig. 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < 0.05) and World Neurosurgery (p < 0.05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < 0.001) and systematic reviews (p < 0.001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing research quality in neurosurgery.
    Keywords:  Neurosurgical journals; Open science practices; Research quality; Research reproducibility; Research transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03008-5
  5. Public Underst Sci. 2024 Oct 11. 9636625241268881
    Public understanding of preprints: How audiences make sense of unreviewed research in the news.
    Alice Fleerackers, Chelsea L Ratcliff, Rebekah Wicke, Andy J King, Jakob D Jensen.
      News reporting of preprints became commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the extent to which the public understands what preprints are is unclear. We sought to fill this gap by conducting a content analysis of 1702 definitions of the term "preprint" that were generated by the US general population and college students. We found that only about two in five people were able to define preprints in ways that align with scholarly conceptualizations of the term, although participants provided a wide array of "other" definitions of preprints that suggest at least a partial understanding of the term. Providing participants with a definition of preprints in a news article helped improve preprint understanding for the student sample, but not for the general population. Our findings shed light on misperceptions that the public has about preprints, underscoring the importance of better education about the nature of preprint research.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; journalism; preprints; public understanding of science; scientific uncertainty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241268881
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 Oct 07. 9(1): 11
    An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency.
    Melanie Sterian, Anmol Samra, Kusala Pussegoda, Tricia Corrin, Mavra Qamar, Austyn Baumeister, Izza Israr, Lisa Waddell.
       BACKGROUND: Preprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions.
    METHODS: Eligible preprints (n = 76) posted between May to August 2022 were identified through an established mpox literature database and followed to July 2024 for changes in publication status. Quality of preprints and published studies was assessed by two independent reviewers to evaluate changes in quality, using validated tools that were available for the study design (n = 33). Tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2); and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. The questions in each tool led to an overall quality assessment of high quality (no concerns with study design, conduct, and/or analysis), moderate quality (minor concerns) or low quality (several concerns). Changes in data (e.g. methods, outcomes, results) for preprint-published pairs (n = 60) were assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second.
    RESULTS: Preprints and published versions that could be evaluated for quality (n = 25 pairs) were mostly assessed as low quality. Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality, while some diagnostic test accuracy studies (3/5) improved or worsened their quality assessment scores. Among all pairs (n = 60), outcomes were often added in the published version (58%) and less commonly removed (18%). Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the minimal changes in quality, results and main conclusions from preprint to published versions supports the use of preprints, and the use of the same critical evaluation tools on preprints as applied to published studies, in decision-making during a public health emergency.
    Keywords:  Monkeypox; Mpox; Peer-review; Preprint; Quality; Risk of bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00152-w
  7. J Dent. 2024 Oct 04. pii: S0300-5712(24)00563-3. [Epub ahead of print] 105393
    Are Open Science Practices in Dentistry associated with higher Altmetric scores and citation rates?
    Jaisson Cenci, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Lex Bouter, Tatiana Pereira Cenci, Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Bruna Brondani, David Moher, Marie Charlotte Huysmans, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci.
       AIM: Open science, a set of principles and practices, aims to make scientific research more accessible and accountable, benefiting scientists and society. This study evaluated whether adopting open science practices (OSPs) correlates with higher citation rates and Altmetric scores.
    METHODS: A random sample of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on dental caries published between 2000 and 2022 was selected. A systematic PubMed search identified relevant RCTs, and data on OSPs - study registration, open methodology, open software, open scripts, open analysis plan, open data, open peer review, and open access (OA) - were manually collected by two independent assessors. The Robot Reviewer tool automatically evaluated the risk of bias (RoB). Outcomes included the total number of citations and the Altmetric Attention Score. Associations between OSPs, RoB, and other explanatory variables with the outcomes were assessed using binomial negative regression analysis, and expressed as Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR; α =.05).
    RESULTS: In total, 323 papers were analysed. At least one OSP was adopted in 57.5% (n=186) of the articles, dropping to 39.6% (n=128) without OA. Papers with protocol registration (IRR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.82) and OA publication (IRR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.53) had higher citation rates. Conversely, papers in full OA journals had fewer citations (IRR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.87). After adjusting for RoB, low-risk studies showed higher citation rates (IRR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.91), while OA lost significance. For Altmetric scores, registered and OA manuscripts showed higher scores (IRR: 3.74; 95% CI: 2.00, 7.01; IRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.75), with registration remaining significant after adjusting for RoB and impact factor (IRR: 3.71; 95% CI: 1.97-6.99).
    CONCLUSION: The adoption of OSPs demonstrated a partial correlation with citation rates and Altmetric scores in RCTs on dental caries; however, these effects are complex and seem more related to the journal's impact factor.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The citations and the attention to clinical trials in dentistry, which could drive clinical decision-making and the elaboration of policies and recommendations, seem to be driven more by the journal's prestige than by the adoption of OSPs.
    Keywords:  Altmetric; number of citations; open science; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105393
  8. Nature. 2024 Oct 07.
    New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03106-w
  9. Am Psychol. 2024 Oct;79(7): 896-897
    Editor bias and diversifying psychology: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
    Laura A King.
      Sharpe (2024) draws attention to the role that editors may play in perpetuating bias in the published psychological literature. While Sharpe focuses on perspective-related diversity in reducing such bias, I argue that identity-related diversity is paramount. Editors play an important role in diversifying the scholarly conversation by recruiting diverse reviewers and providing clear and encouraging feedback on submissions. Further, enhancing the identities represented in the scholarly conversation is crucial to ensuring that editorial decisions are well-informed, that published science is of high quality, and that published literature is less biased. In addition to bringing scholarly expertise, editors must embrace a compassionate, humble, and courageous stance in their role as gatekeepers for our science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001301
  10. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2024 Oct;pii: S1499-4046(24)00422-6. [Epub ahead of print]56(10): 680
    Why Early Career Researchers Should Engage in the Peer Review Process.
    Alexandra MacMillan Uribe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2024.08.005
  11. Am Psychol. 2024 Oct;79(7): 893-895
    To reduce editor bias and increase diversity and transparency, editors must be motivated: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
    Nelson Cowan.
      Sharpe (2024) summarized the factors leading to editorial bias, lack of diversity, and lack of transparency and indicated what might improve matters. Here, I argue that the suggestions that were made would be improved if more thought were given to how these changes impact the incentives of editors. I give examples in the areas of control of bias, encouragement of diversity, and increase of transparency, showing what might be done to incentivize editors, along with other stakeholders, to work on these issues. Perhaps most notably, I suggest that we might change the publication model to allow more individuals to take part by retaining peer review but not organizing the reviews around journals that each have a single chief editor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001305
  12. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2024 Oct 03. pii: S0363-0188(24)00174-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Peer review protection: Pish-Posh or pivotal policy?
    Mohammed Al Tarhuni, Richard Duszak, Robert Optican.
      The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) of 1986 is a pivotal federal mandate designed to enhance medical care quality through effective professional peer review. Importantly, it offers legal immunity to reviewers under specified conditions and mandates the reporting of adverse actions to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). This article explores the implementation of peer review processes in hospitals and the potentially severe ramifications of failure to report, using the scenario of a diagnostic radiologist performing high-end vascular interventional procedures, whose performance came under scrutiny, highlighting the intersection of federal and state laws, accreditation standards, hospital policies, and physician professionalism standards and reporting duties.
    Keywords:  HCQIA; Immunity protection; NPDB; Peer review; Professional review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.10.002
  13. Nurs Sci Q. 2024 Oct;37(4): 309
    The Importance of Peer Review.
    Rosemarie Rizzo Parse.
      
    Keywords:  manuscript submission guidelines; peer reviewers; publishing violations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08943184241269884
  14. Am Psychol. 2024 Oct;79(7): 901-902
    On editor bias and transparency: Reply to Cowan (2024), King (2024), and Thurston and Noor (2024).
    Donald Sharpe.
      Cowan's (2024), King's (2024), and Thurston and Noor's (2024) commentaries on my article (Sharpe, 2024) find us in agreement on many matters relating to editor transparency and bias. Where we disagree is in the extent of change required and the rationale behind undertaking that change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001316
  15. Account Res. 2024 Oct 06. 1-24
    Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science.
    Zhicheng Lin.
      Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.
    Keywords:  Authorship criteria; multidisciplinary research (interdisciplinary research or transdisciplinary research); open science (transparency); substantial contribution versus sufficient contribution; teamwork (group work or co-authorship)
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041
  16. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Oct 09.
    What Guidance Do Violence Journals Provide for Reporting on Sexual and Gender Diversity? A Document Analysis.
    Jennifer C D MacGregor, Yetunde A Ogunpitan, C Nadine Wathen.
       BACKGROUND: Gender-based violence is a worldwide health and social problem with negative short- and long-term health impacts. Sexual and gender minority people experience more gender-based violence and significant barriers to support. These populations are often not included in, or are actively excluded from, gender-based violence research, and sexual orientation and gender are generally poorly measured and reported. One recommendation put forth to improve the evidence base with regard to sexual and gender diversity is higher standards of research and reporting by academic journals. Given the leading role of nurse researchers in this area of women's health, this is a topic of particular importance for nursing research and education.
    AIMS: We examined the sexual and gender diversity-related guidance provided by academic violence journals to authors, editors and peer-reviewers.
    METHODS: We conducted a descriptive document analysis. Two researchers independently searched for, and coded, guidance related to sexual and gender diversity from 16 websites of academic journals focused on violence research.
    RESULTS: While most journals included some mention of diversity or inclusion, only about half provided in-depth guidance for authors, editors and/or peer-reviewers. Guidance related to gender was more common than guidance for sexual diversity. The journals gave varied prominence to diversity-related guidance, and it was often difficult to locate.
    CONCLUSIONS: To reflect the spectrum of lived experiences of gender and sexuality, publishers must actively direct authors, editors and reviewers to include, measure and report these experiences. This has not yet been fully achieved in the important area of gender-based violence research, and is of direct concern to nurse researchers who contribute significantly to this body of knowledge.
    Keywords:  domestic violence; equity; gender diversity; gender‐based violence; nursing; research methods; sexual orientation; transgender health
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16471
  17. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Oct 07. 39(38): e297
    Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.
    Gaziza A Arshabayeva, Ainur B Qumar, Marlen Yessirkepov, Olena Zimba, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit.
      Nurses constitute nearly 50% of the worldwide health workforce, and the World Health Organisation has advocated for an enlargement of their roles to guarantee fair health care and address the increasing need for services. The growing specialization in nursing practice has led to a rise in educational options for nurses, including the growth of PhD programs. These programs play a crucial role in preparing nurse researchers and educators. This growth underlines the importance of evidence-based practice and high-quality academic writing in nursing. The article highlights the importance of nurses' involvement in creating evidence-based practice guidelines. The active engagement of nurses in developing evidence-based practice recommendations is essential to ensure the practicality, relevance, and grounding of these guidelines in real-world clinical experiences. The advancement of nursing depends mainly on using rigorous research procedures to generate, analyze, and disseminate knowledge and data. The current article discusses essential research methodologies, including interviews, surveys, and bibliometric and altmetric analyses. It also aims to tackle concerns about inadequate writing skills, plagiarism, and insufficient comprehension of ethical norms in research and publishing. The recommended strategies to promote nursing research and publications encompass enhancing writing skills through specialized education, embracing open-access publishing, and utilizing social media for broader distribution following publication. Implementing these approaches would increase the quality and impact of nursing publications and reinforce nursing's role in defining health policy and enhancing the care of patients.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Nursing; Nursing Research; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e297
  18. Pan Afr Med J. 2024 ;49 5
    The perilous path: reimagining promotion and tenure in African academia.
    Alphonsus Neba, Luchuo Engelbert Bain.
      The current scientific publication architecture and business models are structured to privilege high-impact Western journals. This has been perpetuated in academia and by funding agencies, where a researcher´s value is often measured by the number of publications and where these papers are published. However, the current system renders journals from low- and middle-income countries, including African journals, largely invisible. Indeed, it is important to answer the fundamental question of why we conduct research. Most would argue that research is only ethically grounded if its core purpose is to create impact and improve lives. There is compelling evidence that the time lag from evidence generation to translation into policy is about 17 years. There is no evidence that publishing in a high-impact journal is more likely to create an impact. Indeed, the move by many universities away from using the impact factor as a measure of academic value is increasingly welcomed. It has become critical to redefine and restructure academic merit. In this essay, we will explore the Afro-centric dimensions of the publish-or-perish rhetoric and its impact on tenure in African academia. We argue that context-relevant and alternative metrics are needed to redefine academic merit, as well as the intentionality of African governments and universities to invest in, trust, and value their own journals as non-negotiables in giving African journals the visibility and trust they deserve. We present an African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) approach, supported by the Gates Foundation, intentional in decolonizing the global publication space, and clearly aligns with its mission of improving lives in Africa through research.
    Keywords:  Africa; Tenure; academia; merit
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2024.49.5.44855
  19. Br J Neurosurg. 2024 Oct 09. 1-2
    Plagiarism-lessons learnt.
    Nitin Mukerji.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2413297
  20. Arthroscopy. 2024 Oct 05. pii: S0749-8063(24)00774-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Human- versus ChatGPT-generated abstracts: Some concerns and suggestion.
    Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; essay; human; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.051
  21. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2024 Oct 10. pii: ejhpharm-2024-004354. [Epub ahead of print]
    The ugly phenomenon of predatory journals: what they are and how to avoid them.
    Eleonora Castellana.
      
    Keywords:  Ethical Review; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; Professional Competence; Research Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2024-004354
  22. Nature. 2024 Oct 11.
    My paper was proved wrong. After a sleepless night, here's what I did next.
    Olivier Gimenez.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02870-z
  23. Acad Psychiatry. 2024 Oct 09.
    Artificial Intelligence and Medical Education, Academic Writing, and Journal Policies: A Focus on Large Language Models.
    Mary K Morreale, Richard Balon, Eugene V Beresin, Andreea Seritan, Enrico G Castillo, Lia A Thomas, Alan K Louie, Rashi Aggarwal, Anthony P S Guerrero, John Coverdale, Adam M Brenner.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-024-02071-w
  24. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Dec;20(4): e1445
    Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR).
    Campbell MECCIR Working Group
       Introduction: The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.
    Methods: Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.
    Campbell Policy: The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.
    How to Use: The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions.
    Providing Feedback: We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this anonymous google form.
    Plan for Updating: We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.
    Keywords:  methodology; reporting guidelines; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445
  25. Clin Exp Optom. 2024 Oct 09. 1-3
    Ten tips for writing a brilliant PhD thesis - and enjoying the process.
    Nathan Efron.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2413706
  26. bioRxiv. 2024 Sep 24. pii: 2024.09.20.614092. [Epub ahead of print]
    Safeguarding Privacy in Genome Research: A Comprehensive Framework for Authors.
    Maryam Ghasemian, Lynette Hammond Gerido, Erman Ayday.
      As genomic research continues to advance, sharing of genomic data and research outcomes has become increasingly important for fostering collaboration and accelerating scientific discovery. However, such data sharing must be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of individuals whose genetic information is being utilized. This paper presents a bidirectional framework for evaluating privacy risks associated with data shared (both in terms of summary statistics and research datasets) in genomic research papers, particularly focusing on re-identification risks such as membership inference attacks (MIA). The framework consists of a structured workflow that begins with a questionnaire designed to capture researchers' (authors') self-reported data sharing practices and privacy protection measures. Responses are used to calculate the risk of re-identification for their study (paper) when compared with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) genomic data sharing policy. Any gaps in compliance help us to identify potential vulnerabilities and encourage the researchers to enhance their privacy measures before submitting their research for publication. The paper also demonstrates the application of this framework, using published genomic research as case study scenarios to emphasize the importance of implementing bidirectional frameworks to support trustworthy open science and genomic data sharing practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.20.614092
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.