bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–11–17
eightteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The research literature is an unsafe workplace.
  2. Training undergraduate biomedical science majors in peer review and constructive criticism through a senior capstone course.
  3. Decolonisation, Indigenous health research and Indigenous authorship: sharing our teams' principles and practices.
  4. Do I Write Like Artificial Intelligence?
  5. Editing companies have the responsibility of ensuring their declared use of generative artificial intelligence.
  6. The rise of predatory publishing and journals.
  7. Nightmare of publishing hard worked research in predatory journal.
  8. A boom in manuscript submissions.
  9. Adopting Optimal Statistical Practices: Reviewers.
  10. Methodological standards in the design and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in emergency medicine literature: a systematic review.
  11. Do Ophthalmology Journals Have AI Policies for Manuscript Writing?
  12. Current and Future Challenges to Publishing Family Medicine Research.
  13. What can a journal editorial team do to strive for equity in health professions education publishing? Leading by example.
  14. Publishing a Plastic Surgery Paper: Composition, Submission, and Revision.
  15. Readership awareness series - paper 14: The submission Dilemma - How to choose a journal?
  16. Ignoring journal metrics on CVs is an act of privilege.
  17. A Guide to Successfully Publishing a Clinical Practice Manuscript.
  18. What I Learned as an Editor-in-Chief.
  1. Account Res. 2024 Nov 11. 1-8
    The research literature is an unsafe workplace.
    Jennifer A Byrne, Adrian G Barnett.
      Research is conducted in workplaces that can present safety hazards. Where researchers work in laboratories, safety hazards can arise through the need to operate complex equipment that can become unsafe if faulty or broken. The research literature also represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment. This article compares our current capacity to flag and repair faulty equipment in research laboratories versus the literature. Whereas laboratory researchers can place written notices on faulty and broken equipment to flag problems and the need for repairs, researchers have limited capacity to flag faulty research publications to other users. We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons.
    Keywords:  Post-publication corrections; PubMed commons; PubPeer; publishers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205
  2. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2024 Nov 07. e0013424
    Training undergraduate biomedical science majors in peer review and constructive criticism through a senior capstone course.
    Kelly J Collins.
      Effective scientific communication is crucial for undergraduate students to succeed in future graduate or professional careers in the biomedical sciences. Peer review and constructive criticism are essential to producing written science communications. Unfortunately, training in how to perform peer review and incorporate constructive criticism is minimal in undergraduate science courses. Here, I describe a senior thesis course for immunology and microbiology majors that encourages students to integrate iterative peer review to improve their writing skills and their ability to incorporate feedback. In this course, students are expected to complete one of the following written projects that focuses on an immunological disorder or infectious disease: a research proposal, a case study, or a meta-analysis/systematic review. Each project is separated into six assignments, and each assignment is assessed through specifications (SPECS)-based grading and peer review where students have multiple attempts to improve their scores on each assignment. Approximately 40% of each student's grade is based on their ability to incorporate feedback from peers and instructors. Preliminary survey results suggest that students are eager to learn how to effectively incorporate peer and instructor feedback. Enhancing training in peer review will encourage students to embrace constructive criticism, which will be essential for their future careers. Initial findings indicate that students are positively engaging with the peer-review process, and the use of SPECS grading fosters a growth mindset. Continued research will further explore how this method can enhance students' confidence and skill in integrating feedback into professional scientific communication.
    Keywords:  SPECs grading; assessment; constructive criticism; growth mindset; iterative feedback; peer review; scientific communication; senior thesis; specifications based grading; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00134-24
  3. Med J Aust. 2024 Nov 11.
    Decolonisation, Indigenous health research and Indigenous authorship: sharing our teams' principles and practices.
    Pat Dudgeon Bardi, Helen Milroy Palyku, Belle Selkirk Noongar, Ashleigh Wright Nunga, Kahli Regan Wongi And Noongar, Shraddha Kashyap, Rama Agung-Igusti, Joanna Alexi, Abigail Bray, Joan Chan, Ee Pin Chang, Sze Wing Georgiana Cheuk, Jemma Collova, Kate Derry, Chontel Gibson Gamilaraay.
      
    Keywords:  Cultural competency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52509
  4. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Nov 13.
    Do I Write Like Artificial Intelligence?
    Himel Mondal.
      This article discusses the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) content detectors, citing studies by Flitcroft et al. The author shares personal experiences in which AI detectors incorrectly flagged human-written content, emphasizing that the influence of AI on writing styles is becoming more pronounced. As AI becomes integrated into writing, a market for "humanizing" AI-generated content is emerging, raising concerns about the balance between innovation and academic standards. The article calls for a shift away from AI detection toward evaluating the quality of ideas, urging stronger peer review and clear guidelines for the role of AI in academic writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16480-6
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Nov 12. pii: S0895-4356(24)00363-9. [Epub ahead of print] 111607
    Editing companies have the responsibility of ensuring their declared use of generative artificial intelligence.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    Keywords:  AI and GAI; human editing; large language models; productivity; publish or perish
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111607
  6. Br Dent J. 2024 Nov;237(9): 699-700
    The rise of predatory publishing and journals.
    Rachael O Rorke, Christopher White, Nabina Bhujel.
      Predatory publishing is a practice where businesses offer illegitimate and unethical publishing where an open access model is generally used with very little or no peer review at all. These publishers also charge high fees for article processing without the standard editorial or publishing standards for scientific disciplines. Predatory journals are an increasing phenomenon in dentistry, as in any healthcare academic publishing. This can mean poor-quality or false research is given false legitimacy and becomes available for dissemination and public consumption. They can be seen as an easy route to publish any work, particularly by junior colleagues who are trying to advance their academic careers. This article discusses the features and issues with predatory publishing while also highlighting the importance of ensuring healthcare literature remains credible, reputable and trustworthy.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-024-8006-3
  7. Ind Psychiatry J. 2024 Aug;33(Suppl 1): S291-S292
    Nightmare of publishing hard worked research in predatory journal.
    Gayatri G Maindad, Sudhanshu A Mahajan, Pravin Baravkar, Meghana Padwal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_351_23
  8. J Food Sci. 2024 Nov;89(11): 6789-6790
    A boom in manuscript submissions.
    Rich Hartel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17469
  9. J Nurs Educ. 2024 Nov;63(11): 785-786
    Adopting Optimal Statistical Practices: Reviewers.
    John M Taylor.
      In this installment of the Methodology Corner, we briefly discuss how our peer-reviewers might foster optimal statistical practices among our community of researchers. Reviewers are encouraged to seek out training opportunities that enhance their own statistical expertise and to consider tools that might support and enhance the quality of their reviews. We also encourage reviewers with statistical expertise to further lend their time and efforts to reviewership. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(11):785-786.].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20241009-01
  10. BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 11. 14(11): e082648
    Methodological standards in the design and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in emergency medicine literature: a systematic review.
    Onlak Ruangsomboon, João Pedro Lima, Mohamed Eltorki, Andrew Worster.
       OBJECTIVE: Pilot and feasibility studies are intended to ensure that subsequent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are feasible, economical and rigorous, especially in a challenging research environment such as emergency medicine (EM). We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality in conducting and reporting randomised pilot and feasibility studies in the EM literature and propose recommendations to improve their quality.
    DESIGN: Methodological systematic review.
    DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (2018-29 September 2023) for pilot or feasibility RCTs published as full texts in the five top-ranked and other first-quartile EM journals according to Scimago.
    DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed their methodological features and reporting quality primarily based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension.
    RESULTS: A total of 24 randomised trials identified as pilot (n=13), feasibility (n=3) or both (n=8) were included. At least one feasibility outcome was assessed in 9 trials (feasibility trials), while 15 others only focused on treatment efficacy (efficacy trials). Only three (12.5%) studies progressed to the main trials. Among 12 feasibility trials, 55.6% reported their outcomes with uncertainty estimates, and 33.3% had clear progression criteria. Efficacy trials tended to draw clinical implications on their results. Studies from the five top-ranked journals had better methodological and reporting quality than those from other first-quartile journals.
    CONCLUSION: Main methodological concerns for pilot and feasibility studies in first-quartile EM literature include misconceptions, misuses and suboptimal design and reporting quality. These issues were more prominent in lower-ranked first-quartile journals. Our findings highlight the need for resources and training for researchers, journal editors and peer reviewers on the value, objectives and appropriate conduct of pilot and feasibility studies. The conceptual framework and standardised methodological components should be emphasised. EM journals should reinforce the reporting standards and support their publication. These actions can lead to more methodologically rigorous pilot and feasibility studies in EM.
    PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023468437.
    Keywords:  ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE; Randomized Controlled Trial; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082648
  11. Am J Ophthalmol. 2024 Nov 06. pii: S0002-9394(24)00518-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Do Ophthalmology Journals Have AI Policies for Manuscript Writing?
    Amr Almobayed, Taher K Eleiwa, Omar Badla, Ali Khodor, Raul E Ruiz-Lozano, Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny.
       PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policies in manuscript writing in PubMed-indexed ophthalmology journals and examine the relationship between adoption of these policies and journal characteristics.
    DESIGN: Cross-sectional study SUBJECTS: PubMed-indexed ophthalmology journals MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of policies in journal guidelines regarding the use of AI in manuscript writing.
    METHODS: We reviewed the guidelines of 84 ophthalmology journals indexed in PubMed to determine the presence of AI-use policies for manuscript generation. We further compared journal metrics, such as CiteScore, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), between journals with and without AI policies. Additionally, we analyzed the association between AI policy adoption and journal characteristics, such as MEDLINE indexing and society affiliation.
    RESULTS: Among the 84 journals, 53 (63.1%) had AI policies for manuscript generation, with no significant changes observed during the study period. Journals indexed in MEDLINE were significantly more likely to have AI policies (68.8%) than non-MEDLINE-indexed journals, where no AI policies were found (0%) (p = 0.0008). There was no significant difference in AI policy adoption between society-affiliated (62.7%) and unaffiliated journals (64.7%) (p = 0.8443). Journals with AI policies had significantly higher metrics, including CiteScore, SNIP, SJR, JIF, and JCI (p < 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: While many ophthalmology journals have adopted AI policies, the lack of guidelines in over one-third of journals highlights a critical need for consistent and comprehensive AI policies, particularly as the AI landscape rapidly advances.
    Keywords:  AI; AI Disclosure; AI Ethics; AI Policies; AI and Healthcare; AI in Research; AI-assisted Research; Artificial Intelligence; Ethical Standards; Journal Guidelines; MEDLINE Indexing; Medical Journals; Ophthalmology; PubMed Indexed Journals; Research Integrity; Scientific Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.11.003
  12. J Am Board Fam Med. 2024 Nov 15. pii: jabfm.2023.230438R1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Current and Future Challenges to Publishing Family Medicine Research.
    Dean A Seehusen, Sarina B Schrager, Sumi M Sexton.
      
    Keywords:  ADFM/NAPCRG Research Summitt 2023; Family Medicine; Scholarly Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230438R1
  13. Med Teach. 2024 Nov 09. 1-3
    What can a journal editorial team do to strive for equity in health professions education publishing? Leading by example.
    Anna T Cianciolo, Abigail Konopasky, Neera R Jain, Tasha R Wyatt, Halah Ibrahim, Candace J Chow, Anabelle Andon, Dario Torre, Thirusha Naidu.
       WHAT WAS THE EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE?: Representation gaps in medical education publishing are widely recognized and may be attributed to epistemic injustice, defined as 'wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower.' Although peer review is meant to ensure 'rigor,' some quality assurance practices can inadvertently silence entire populations and impede understanding of a field's foundational concepts.
    WHAT WAS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION?: To honor our journal's commitment to equitable knowledge production, a diversity, equity, and inclusion working group at Teaching and Learning in Medicine (TLM) reimagined rigor to include striving for a 'more equitable, diverse, and inclusive research system.'
    HOW WAS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION IMPLEMENTED?: We implemented structural peer review reform at TLM by adapting Hogan et al.'s Dimensionality and R4P framework for health equity, prioritizing change in our communication with contributors.
    WHAT LESSONS LEARNED ARE RELEVANT TO A WIDER AUDIENCE?: Since implementation, our journal has received feedback expressing appreciation for humanity and personal connection in our peer review, and we have observed increased publications from geographically marginalized authors. We believe our outcomes result from respecting marginalized authors' authority to pursue their own interests, concerns, and successes with respect to knowledge production.
    WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?: We believe our approach can be adopted by other peer-reviewed journals. We invite application and critique of our framework to advance community development in creating relevant, accessible, and equitable knowledge production for all people.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; diversity, equity, and inclusion; epistemic justice; social justice
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2425026
  14. Ann Plast Surg. 2024 Dec 01. 93(6S Suppl 3): S150-S153
    Publishing a Plastic Surgery Paper: Composition, Submission, and Revision.
    William C Lineaweaver, Sara C Chaker, Mariam Saad, Ricardo Torres-Guzman, Andrew J James, Sriya Nemani.
       ABSTRACT: This article provides a roadmap for plastic surgeons on how to successfully conceptualize, draft, and publish a paper. By publishing papers, authors will not only add to their professional standings but gain a deeper understanding of their topics and become artful at communicating their expertise to others. The processes of composition, submission, and revisions of manuscripts are an interlocking set of steps, and this essay describes the steps and their relationships to each other and final successful publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004057
  15. Ocul Surf. 2024 Nov 09. pii: S1542-0124(24)00117-4. [Epub ahead of print]34 521-522
    Readership awareness series - paper 14: The submission Dilemma - How to choose a journal?
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    Keywords:  Choosing; Ethics; Journal; Manuscript submission; Scientific paper
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2024.11.003
  16. Nature. 2024 Nov;635(8038): 290
    Ignoring journal metrics on CVs is an act of privilege.
    Valério Souza-Neto.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03705-7
  17. Nurs Womens Health. 2024 Nov 05. pii: S1751-4851(24)00213-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    A Guide to Successfully Publishing a Clinical Practice Manuscript.
    Heidi Collins Fantasia.
      Clinical practice manuscripts present current evidence-based information for nurses that can be incorporated into practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2024.10.001
  18. Surgery. 2024 Dec;pii: S0039-6060(24)00886-9. [Epub ahead of print]176(6): 1557
    What I Learned as an Editor-in-Chief.
    Kevin E Behrns.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.10.004
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.