bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–11–03
thirty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. J Bioeth Inq. 2024 Oct 31.
      This perspective highlights a growing and concerning trend within the scientific publishing community: the increasing incidence of manuscript rejections within twenty-four hours of submission without peer review, followed by offers of transfer to a sister journal with a high article processing fee. Recommendations to address such issues, including increased transparency in the manuscript review process, the establishment of more robust editorial guidelines, and the promotion of equitable publishing opportunities regardless of financial capability have also been proposed.
    Keywords:  Open access; Publishing; Sister journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10393-5
  2. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(10): e0312666
      The increasing prevalence of fake publications created by paper mills poses a significant challenge to maintaining scientific integrity. While integrity analysts typically rely on textual and visual clues to identify fake articles, determining which papers merit further investigation can be akin to searching for a needle in a haystack, as these fake publications have non-related authors and are published on non-related venues. To address this challenge, we developed a new methodology for provenance analysis, which automatically tracks and groups suspicious figures and documents. Our approach groups manuscripts from the same paper mill by analyzing their figures and identifying duplicated and manipulated regions. These regions are linked and organized in a provenance graph, providing evidence of systematic production. We tested our solution on a paper mill dataset of hundreds of documents and also on a larger version of the dataset that deliberately included thousands of documents intentionally selected to distract our method. Our approach successfully identified and linked systematically produced articles on both datasets by pinpointing the figures they reused and manipulated from one another. The technique herein proposed offers a promising solution to identify fraudulent manuscripts, and it could be a valuable tool for supporting scientific integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312666
  3. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 Oct 28. pii: S0190-9622(24)03051-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  IMGs; International Medical Graduates; authorship validity; ethics; integrity; misinformation; paper mills; peer review; predatory publishing; research; residency selection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2024.10.034
  4. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2024 ;pii: S0004-27492024000600100. [Epub ahead of print]87(6): e20241012
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-1012
  5. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2024 Nov;106(8): 657
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2024.0102
  6. Arthroscopy. 2024 Oct;pii: S0749-8063(24)00506-1. [Epub ahead of print]40(10): 2529-2531
      There are multiple reasons for a clinician to consider serving as a manuscript reviewer, including improving their clinical knowledge and research skills, becoming a better writer, and making contributions to advancing scientific knowledge. Reviewers for the Arthroscopy family of journals can find essential tools on the journal websites, including a Journal Course for Writers and Reviewers: Checklists and Templates for Original Scientific Articles, Checklists and Templates for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and a Research Pearls Collection. Arthroscopy reviewers provide journal editors with Confidential Comments, on which the editors heavily rely, summarizing study strengths and limitations as well as rationale supporting the reviewer's recommendation as to whether the submission is recommended for publication. In addition, reviewers provide Comments to Authors suggesting opportunities to improve the research whether or not the article is recommended for publication; the goal is to provide helpful feedback. Key areas of reviewer focus are reproducible methods (like a cookbook), clinical (rather than statistical) significance, illustrative and well-labeled figures, and detailed figure legends. Most of all, reviewers must ensure that the conclusion of a study is based entirely on the study results and thus whether or not the study hypothesis is or is not supported by the results. Crucially, reviewers must ensure that authors resist the common temptation to state conclusions that go beyond or overreach the study results.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.07.009
  7. Children (Basel). 2024 Sep 29. pii: 1191. [Epub ahead of print]11(10):
      In the academic community, discussions and debates are a natural and vital part of the research process [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/children11101191
  8. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2024 Oct 29.
      Peer review of submitted manuscripts refers to the process of sending out papers for evaluation by suitably qualified academics/practitioners working in the same area. After their assessments and recommendations have been addressed by submitting authors editors will decide on whether publication is warranted or not. Unfortunately, 'peer review' has achieved a high status in courts without a real understanding of the way that the system works. Given that it has been deemed: 'a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works', greater understanding of the nature of peer review is required. The following paper provides an overview of its strengths and weaknesses.
    Keywords:  Assessment; Peer review; Publication; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00905-5
  9. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(10): e0309715
       BACKGROUND: Emerging technologies and societal changes create new ethical concerns and greater need for cross-disciplinary and cross-stakeholder communication on navigating ethics in research. Scholarly articles are the primary mode of communication for researchers, however there are concerns regarding the expression of research ethics in these outputs. If not in these outputs, where should researchers and stakeholders learn about the ethical considerations of research?
    OBJECTIVES: Drawing on a scoping review, analysis of policy in a specific disciplinary context (learning and technology), and reference group discussion, we address concerns regarding research ethics, in research involving emerging technologies through developing novel policy that aims to foster learning through the expression of ethical concepts in research.
    APPROACH: This paper develops new editorial policy for expression of research ethics in scholarly outputs across disciplines. These guidelines, aimed at authors, reviewers, and editors, are underpinned by: a cross-disciplinary scoping review of existing policy and adherence to these policies;a review of emerging policies, and policies in a specific discipline (learning and technology); and,a collective drafting process undertaken by a reference group of journal editors (the authors of this paper).
    RESULTS: Analysis arising from the scoping review indicates gaps in policy across a wide range of journals (54% have no statement regarding reporting of research ethics), and adherence (51% of papers reviewed did not refer to ethics considerations). Analysis of emerging and discipline-specific policies highlights gaps.
    CONCLUSION: Our collective policy development process develops novel materials suitable for cross-disciplinary transfer, to address specific issues of research involving AI, and broader challenges of emerging technologies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309715
  10. Korean J Radiol. 2024 Nov;25(11): 1029-1031
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Chatbot; Deep learning; Healthcare; Large language model; Large multimodal model; Medicine; Radiology; Reporting guideline; Reporting quality; Stochasticity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0788
  11. S Afr J Sci. 2023 May-Jun;119(5-6):pii: 15129. [Epub ahead of print]119(5-6):
      The data ecosystem is complex and involves multiple stakeholders. Researchers and scientists engaging in data-intensive research collect, analyse, store, manage and share large volumes of data. Consequently, capturing researchers' and scientists' views from multidisciplinary fields on data use, sharing and governance adds an important African perspective to emerging debates. We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey and received 160 responses from researchers and scientists representing 43 sub-Saharan African countries. Whilst most respondents were satisfied with institutional data storage processes, 40% indicated that their organisations or institutions did not have a formally established process for storing data beyond the life cycle of the project. Willingness to share data was generally high, but increased when data privacy was ensured. Robust governance frameworks increased the willingness to share, as did the regulation of access to data on shared platforms. Incentivising data sharing remains controversial. Respondents were satisfied with exchanging their data for co-authorship on publications (89.4%) and collaboration on projects (77.6%). However, respondents were split almost equally in terms of sharing their data for commercial gain. Regarding the process of managing data, 40.6% indicated that their organisations do not provide training on best practices for data management. This could be related to a lack of resources, chronic institutional under-investment, and suboptimal research training and mentorship in sub-Saharan Africa. The sustainability of data sharing may require ethical incentive structures to further encourage researchers and scientists. Tangible infrastructure to facilitate such sharing is a prerequisite. Capacity development in data governance for researchers and scientists is sorely needed.
    Significance: Data sharing is necessary to advance science, yet there are many constraints. In this study, we explored factors that promote a willingness to share, as well as constraining factors. Seeking potential solutions to improve data sharing is a scientific and ethical imperative. The standardisation of basic data sharing and data transfer agreements, and the development of a Data Access Committee will strengthen data governance and facilitate responsible data sharing in sub-Saharan Africa. Funders, institutions, researchers and scientists ought to jointly contribute to fair and equitable data use and sharing during and beyond the life cycle of research projects.
    Keywords:  big data; data governance; data sharing; data transfer agreements; researchers; scientists; sub-Saharan Africa
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/15129
  12. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024 Oct 31. pii: gkae860. [Epub ahead of print]
      SSBD (https://ssbd.riken.jp) is a platform for the sharing and reuse of bioimaging data. As part of efforts to build a bioimaging data ecosystem, SSBD has recently been updated to a two-tiered data resource comprising SSBD:repository, a public repository for the sharing of all types of bioimaging data reported in journals, and SSBD:database, an added-value database for the sharing of curated, highly reusable, metadata-rich data. This update addresses the conflicting demands of rapid data publication and sharing of richly annotated data, thereby promoting bioimaging data sharing and reuse. With this update, SSBD is now positioned as a core repository and database within the foundingGIDE, an international consortium working to establish a global image data ecosystem. Harmonizing metadata between data resources enables cross-searching and data exchange with data resources from other countries and regions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae860
  13. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(10): e0311493
      Calls to make scientific research more open have gained traction with a range of societal stakeholders. Open Science practices include but are not limited to the early sharing of results via preprints and openly sharing outputs such as data and code to make research more reproducible and extensible. Existing evidence shows that adopting Open Science practices has effects in several domains. In this study, we investigate whether adopting one or more Open Science practices leads to significantly higher citations for an associated publication, which is one form of academic impact. We use a novel dataset known as Open Science Indicators, produced by PLOS and DataSeer, which includes all PLOS publications from 2018 to 2023 as well as a comparison group sampled from the PMC Open Access Subset. In total, we analyze circa 122'000 publications. We calculate publication and author-level citation indicators and use a broad set of control variables to isolate the effect of Open Science Indicators on received citations. We show that Open Science practices are adopted to different degrees across scientific disciplines. We find that the early release of a publication as a preprint correlates with a significant positive citation advantage of about 20.2% (±.7) on average. We also find that sharing data in an online repository correlates with a smaller yet still positive citation advantage of 4.3% (±.8) on average. However, we do not find a significant citation advantage for sharing code. Further research is needed on additional or alternative measures of impact beyond citations. Our results are likely to be of interest to researchers, as well as publishers, research funders, and policymakers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311493
  14. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Oct 29. 30(6): 53
      Citizen science (CS) is an umbrella term for research with a significant amount of contributions from volunteers. Those volunteers can occupy a hybrid role, being both 'researcher' and 'subject' at the same time. This has repercussions for questions about responsibility and credit, e.g. pertaining to the issue of authorship. In this paper, we first review some existing guidelines for authorship and their applicability to CS. Second, we assess the claim that the guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), known as 'the Vancouver guidelines', may lead to exclusion of deserving citizen scientists as authors. We maintain that the idea of including citizen scientists as authors is supported by at least two arguments: transparency and fairness. Third, we argue that it might be plausible to include groups as authors in CS. Fourth and finally, we offer a heuristic list of seven recommendations to be considered when deciding about whom to include as an author of a CS publication.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Citizen science; Credit; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); Vancouver guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00516-x
  15. Nature. 2024 Oct;634(8036): 1248-1249
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03477-0
  16. Radiol Technol. 2024 Nov;96(2): 117-122
      
  17. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2024 ;pii: S0004-27492025000100100. [Epub ahead of print]88(1): e20241013
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-1013
  18. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2024 Oct 27. pii: S0964-3397(24)00253-2. [Epub ahead of print]86 103868
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103868
  19. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2024 Oct 27. pii: S0964-3397(24)00252-0. [Epub ahead of print]86 103867
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103867
  20. Can Urol Assoc J. 2024 Aug 30.
       INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Urological Association's (CUA) annual meeting is the largest gathering of Canadian urologists, and many abstracts that are presented go on to be published as peer-reviewed papers. Our objective is to determine the publication rates and impact of these abstracts, and examine predictors associated with their publication.
    METHODS: We identified abstracts presented at the 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2021 CUA meetings, and determined if there were matching manuscripts based on author and title using a comprehensive Medline search. Standardized data was extracted. Medians and interquartile ranges are presented, and regression models were used to determine factors associated with manuscript publication, journal impact factor, and time to publication.
    RESULTS: There were 1732 CUA abstracts in our years of interest. The overall publication rate was 45.4%. Median journal impact factor was 2.27 for all published abstracts and time to publication was 13.2 months. Type of presentation was significantly associated with publication rate (p<0.001), with 63.7% of podiums, 46.7% of moderated posters, and 39.5% of unmoderated posters published. The median journal impact factor was 3.45 for published podiums, 2.19 for moderated posters, and 2.10 for unmoderated posters.
    CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 45% of CUA annual meeting abstracts are eventually published. The type of presentation correlates well with both publication and impact factor, suggesting the CUA review process and scientific program committee does a good job of judging abstract quality.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8843
  21. Med Teach. 2024 Oct 26. 1-2
      The New Wave type of article provides an opportunity for quickly disseminating creative and innovative solutions to the challenges faced by health professions educators. The associate editors look back at the first year since its launch and provide key recommendations for future submissions.
    Keywords:  Publishing; commentary; creativity; innovation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2421999