bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–12–29
24 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Can novelty scores on papers shift the power dynamics in scientific publishing?
  2. Troubling Trends in Biomedical Research Publication: "Publish or Perish" Results in a Propensity for Ethical Violations.
  3. Decoding Correlations in Predatory Business Practices and Physicians' Strategies Against Daily Predatory Emails.
  4. From 'publish or perish' to 'publish with purpose': perspectives from young adults with lived and living experience on transforming academic publishing in patient-oriented research.
  5. Reassessing AI in Medicine: Exploring the Capabilities of AI in Academic Abstract Synthesis.
  6. Authors' Reply: Reassessing AI in Medicine: Exploring the Capabilities of AI in Academic Abstract Synthesis.
  7. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: sailing fair winds or between the devil and the deep blue sea?
  8. Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe?
  9. Strategies for integrating ChatGPT and generative AI into clinical studies.
  10. AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al.
  11. A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.
  12. A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions.
  13. Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control study.
  14. How to … Build a Peer Reviewer Community in Health Professions Education.
  15. Collaborative approaches to integrating large language models in academic writing.
  16. Data management (and sharing) in neuroscience: balancing possible, practical and perfect solutions.
  17. Time to look beyond (and before) journal reporting requirements: a review of ethnicity reporting in UK clinical trial results publications in three high-impact journals.
  18. Trends in scientific publication among dental students at a private Peruvian university: a seven-year characterization.
  19. Medical ethics in China and making tacit publication criteria explicit: tips on getting your paper accepted.
  20. Data sharing in circadian rhythm and mental health research: current status, challenges, recommendations and future directions.
  21. Evaluating data sharing statements in leading emergency medicine journals: A mixed methods review.
  22. Can Open Science Advance Health Justice? Genomic Research Dissemination in the Evolving Data-Sharing Landscape.
  23. [Summarising a case you experienced: how to write an abstract effectively].
  24. Embracing the Digital Era for Greater Impact and Accessibility.
  1. Nature. 2024 Dec 20.
    Can novelty scores on papers shift the power dynamics in scientific publishing?
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-04021-w
  2. Arthroscopy. 2024 Dec 20. pii: S0749-8063(24)01080-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Troubling Trends in Biomedical Research Publication: "Publish or Perish" Results in a Propensity for Ethical Violations.
    James H Lubowitz, Elizabeth Matzkin, Michael J Rossi.
      As a result of the "publish or perish" environment for biomedical journal authors, as well as new developments in open access publication models ("pay to publish") and rapid improvements in artificial intelligence large language models (like ChatGPT), troubling trends and a propensity for ethical violations now exists. Credit is commonly being taken for authorship by those who fail to meet authorial criteria, which is unethical. Experienced co-authors are providing inadequate diligence in drafting, critical review, and final approval of submitted articles, which is unethical, or at the very least, careless. Research lacking originality ("copycat" studies) is becoming common, which while unethical, is also uninteresting and creates a burden for journal reviewers, editors, and most of all, readers. Publication of least publishable units (LPU or "salami slicing"), where authors divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper results in quantity rather than quality, is ethically inappropriate. LPU can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Duplicate submission of a paper to more than one journal (in the same or different languages), such that the paper is under peer review by multiple journals at the same time is unethical and can result in two or more journals publishing the same article. Duplicate publication (publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published), without clear reference to the previous publication is unethical. Predatory journals, with low standards of quality or peer review, and predatory practices by publishers and owners of ostensibly non-predatory journals, can result in solicitation and acceptance of articles for publication (as well as author publication charges or fees) for the purpose of generating revenue, rather than for legitimate editorial reasons based on article quality and content. This is unethical. Opportunities exist to mitigate against these trends, and by naming these trends and identifying opportunities to avoid ethical transgression, our well-intentioned community can publish our scholarship in an unimpeachable manner.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.12.017
  3. Cureus. 2024 Nov;16(11): e74222
    Decoding Correlations in Predatory Business Practices and Physicians' Strategies Against Daily Predatory Emails.
    Alessandro Martinino, Frank Smeenk, Valentina Basile, Juan Pablo Scarano Pereira, Dharmanand Ramnarain, Sjaak Pouwels.
      Introduction Predatory journals are marked by inadequate editorial practices and peer review processes, diverging from established global standards in scientific publishing. This article, as a component of the ASGLOS Study, aims to explore the relationship between participant demographics and their experiences with targeted predatory business activities, including their approaches to managing daily predatory emails. Methods To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. Results A total of 978 responses were analyzed from 58 countries around the world. Data underscores a statistically significant association between academic level and email influx (p<0.001). Participants holding a PhD are disproportionately targeted, receiving more than 10 emails/week compared of those without a PhD (p<0.001). Participants with a more prolific publication record, indicated by higher numbers of overall publications, are inclined to directly delete emails. Also, individuals with a higher H Index (p<0.001) are more prone to occasionally responding to these emails. Conclusion Our results not only highlight patterns in predatory email reception based on age and academic status but also emphasize the importance of considering academic productivity in understanding the prevalence of predatory solicitations.
    Keywords:  academic spam; electronic mail; predatory journal; survey; time management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74222
  4. Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Dec 20. 10(1): 133
    From 'publish or perish' to 'publish with purpose': perspectives from young adults with lived and living experience on transforming academic publishing in patient-oriented research.
    Sandy Rao, Rae Jardine, Abitha Suthakaran, Laetitia Satam, Antoaneta A Todorova, Ysabelle Tumaneng, Julien Quickstad.
       BACKGROUND: This commentary article critically assesses the inclusion and recognition of young adults with lived and living experiences (YALLE) in academic publishing. Stemming from our involvement in a health research study, this analysis interrogates the disparity between the stated importance of YALLE contributions in health research and their actual recognition, specifically in academic publications, which serve as the principal "currency" in research. This tokenism limits the potential for their unique insights to substantially enrich the discourse and dissemination of knowledge. Set against a backdrop of systemic biases and structural barriers, this discussion underscores the persistent minoritization of YALLE, despite increasing nominal recognition within academic and health research communities.
    MAIN TEXT: The commentary begins by placing the engagement of young adults in health research within its current context, showing that this inclusion often remains superficial, serving more as a symbolic gesture toward inclusivity rather than fostering genuine participatory research. It critiques the implicit biases within institutional frameworks that continue to shape research culture detrimentally, thus stifling the transformative potential of research led and partnered by young adults. The core of the narrative addresses the complex challenges faced by YALLE, including discrimination, underrecognition, and inadequate participatory roles in research processes. These issues are magnified by the prevalent "publish or perish" culture in academia, which prioritizes the quantity of scholarly output over the quality and inclusivity of research contributions.
    CONCLUSIONS: The commentary advocates for a crucial shift in academic publishing to genuinely appreciate and integrate the contributions of young adults. We call for a transition from a "publish or perish" model to a "publish with purpose" approach, which necessitates rethinking what is considered valuable knowledge and who is acknowledged as its creators. This shift aims to cultivate an academic culture where knowledge is treated as a communal resource, and publications are used as tools to advance societal understanding and progress.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Mental health research; Participatory research; Patient-oriented research; Young adults; Youth engagement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00668-x
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 23. 26 e55920
    Reassessing AI in Medicine: Exploring the Capabilities of AI in Academic Abstract Synthesis.
    Zijian Wang, Chunyang Zhou.
      
    Keywords:  AI; AI-generated scientific content; ChatGPT; LLM; NLP; abstract; academic research; artificial intelligence; comparative analysis; extract; extraction; generation; generative; language model; natural language processing; plagiarism; publication; reviewer bias; scientific research; text; textual
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/55920
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 23. 26 e65123
    Authors' Reply: Reassessing AI in Medicine: Exploring the Capabilities of AI in Academic Abstract Synthesis.
    Tien-Wei Hsu, Chih-Sung Liang.
      
    Keywords:  AI; AI-generated scientific content; ChatGPT; LLM; NLP; abstract; academic research; artificial intelligence; comparative analysis; extract; extraction; generation; generative; language model; natural language processing; plagiarism; publication; reviewer bias; scientific research; text; textual
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/65123
  7. Women Health. 2025 Jan;65(1): 1-3
    Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: sailing fair winds or between the devil and the deep blue sea?
    Márcia Mendonça Carneiro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2025.2445890
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Dec 18. pii: S0895-4356(24)00402-5. [Epub ahead of print] 111646
    Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe?
    Jérémie F Cohen, David Moher.
      This viewpoint examines the use of generative AI (genAI) models in medical writing, discusses the opportunities and threats they represent, and highlights avenues for improvement and future research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111646
  9. Blood Res. 2024 Dec 24. 59(1): 45
    Strategies for integrating ChatGPT and generative AI into clinical studies.
    Jeong-Moo Lee.
      Large language models, specifically ChatGPT, are revolutionizing clinical research by improving content creation and providing specific useful features. These technologies can transform clinical research, including data collection, analysis, interpretation, and results sharing. However, integrating these technologies into the academic writing workflow poses significant challenges. In this review, I investigated the integration of large-language model-based AI tools into clinical research, focusing on practical implementation strategies and addressing the ethical considerations associated with their use. Additionally, I provide examples of the safe and sound use of generative AI in clinical research and emphasize the need to ensure that AI-generated outputs are reliable and valid in scholarly writing settings. In conclusion, large language models are a powerful tool for organizing and expressing ideas efficiently; however, they have limitations. Writing an academic paper requires critical analysis and intellectual input from the authors. Moreover, AI-generated text must be carefully reviewed to reflect the authors' insights. These AI tools significantly enhance the efficiency of repetitive research tasks, although challenges related to plagiarism detection and ethical use persist.
    Keywords:  Academic Writing; ChatGPT; Clinical Research; Generative AI; Research Methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s44313-024-00045-3
  10. Account Res. 2024 Dec 25. 1-3
    AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al.
    Dag Øivind Madsen, Shahab Saquib Sohail.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2445278
  11. Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 20. 13(1): 310
    A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.
    Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke.
       BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that a randomised controlled trial (RCT) publishes its results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of study completion. When RCTs are not published or publication is delayed, this can contribute to publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive or significant results to be published more frequently than studies with nonsignificant or negative results. This bias skews the available evidence, creating a distorted view of the research landscape. There is uncertainty about which activities best mitigate publication bias. This review systematically synthesises literature on activities that targeted researchers with the intention of reducing publication bias among health science researchers.
    METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Scopus and forward and backward citation searches. There were no restrictions on language, time or publication status. We included studies of any design that tested an activity to reduce publication bias in health research. Ideally, participants had to be investigators or researchers who had conducted, led or been involved in RCTs. The context was any research institution that conducts research. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility, followed by duplicate full-text screening and data extraction. One reviewer collated and summarised the extracted data and arranged these using an analytical framework to describe the findings thematically. For quality assurance, a second reviewer checked the data analysis.
    RESULTS: Our database search yielded 14,185 records, with 11,754 after de-duplication. Of these, we excluded 11,728 records after title and abstract screening. We assessed 26 full texts for eligibility. One of these met the eligibility criteria. Forward and backward citation searches yielded 57 records, and 43 were eligible. We included 44 studies published between 1995 and 2022 that described activities promoting the publication of health-related research. We identified 10 broad activities that were often used in combination and concentrated on writing manuscripts.
    DISCUSSION: This review describes several strategies that have been used to assist health researchers in publishing their findings. However, our search was unable to find studies that tested activities specifically geared toward researchers conducting RCTs. Rigorous research is needed to determine effective strategies for reducing publication bias among trialists.
    Keywords:  Publication bias; Randomised controlled trials; Research waste; Scoping reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02728-5
  12. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(12): e0315674
    A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions.
    Charvi Rastogi, Xiangchen Song, Zhijing Jin, Ivan Stelmakh, Hal Daumé, Kun Zhang, Nihar B Shah.
      Many peer-review processes involve reviewers submitting their independent reviews, followed by a discussion between the reviewers of each paper. A common question among policymakers is whether the reviewers of a paper should be anonymous to each other during the discussion. We shed light on this question by conducting a randomized controlled trial at the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) 2022 conference where reviewer discussions were conducted over a typed forum. We randomly split the reviewers and papers into two conditions-one with anonymous discussions and the other with non-anonymous discussions. We also conduct an anonymous survey of all reviewers to understand their experience and opinions. We compare the two conditions in terms of the amount of discussion, influence of seniority on the final decisions, politeness, reviewers' self-reported experiences and preferences. Overall, this experiment finds small, significant differences favoring the anonymous discussion setup based on the evaluation criteria considered in this work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315674
  13. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Dec 25. pii: bmjebm-2024-113083. [Epub ahead of print]
    Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control study.
    Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Khaoula Ben Messaoud, Mark Richards, Cyril Jaksic, Julien Gobeill, Jeevanthi Liyanapathirana, Luc Mottin, Nona Naderi, Patrick Ruch, Zoé Mariot, Alexandra Calmy, Julia Friedman, Leonard Leibovici, Sara Schroter.
       OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the gender (primary) and geographical affiliation (post-hoc) of the first and/or last authors are associated with publication decisions after peer review.
    DESIGN: Case-control study.
    SETTING: Biomedical journals.
    PARTICIPANTS: Original peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Manuscripts accepted (cases) and rejected for publication (controls).
    RESULTS: Of 6213 included manuscripts, 5294 (85.2%) first and 5479 (88.1%) last authors' gender were identified; 2511 (47.4%) and 1793 (32.7%) were women, respectively. The proportion of women first and last authors was 48.4% (n=1314) and 32.2% (n=885) among cases and 46.4% (n=1197) and 33.2% (n=908) among controls. After adjustment, the association between the first author's gender and acceptance for publication remained non-significant 1.04 (0.92 to 1.17). Acceptance for publication was lower for first authors affiliated to Asia 0.58 (0.46 to 0.73), Africa 0.75 (0.41 to 1.36) and South America 0.68 (0.40 to 1.16) compared with Europe, and for first author affiliated to upper-middle country-income 0.66 (0.47 to 0.95) and lower-middle/low 0.69 (0.46 to 1.03) compared with high country-income group. It was significantly higher when both first and last authors were affiliated to different countries from same geographical and income groups 1.35 (1.03 to 1.77), different countries and geographical but same income groups 1.50 (1.14 to 1.96) or different countries, geographical and income groups 1.78 (1.27 to 2.50) compared with authors from similar countries. The study funding was independently associated with the acceptance for publication (when compared with no funding, 1.40; 1.04 to 1.89 for funding by association & foundations, 2.76; 1.87 to 4.10 for international organisations, 1.30; 1.04 to 1.62 for non-profit & associations & foundations). The reviewers' recommendations of the original submitted version were significantly associated with the outcome (unadjusted 5.36; 4.98 to 5.78 for acceptance compared with rejection). Gender of the first author was not associated with reviewers' recommendations (adjusted 0.96, 0.87 to 1.06).
    CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify evidence of gender bias during the editorial decision-making process for papers sent out to peer review. However, the under-representation in manuscripts accepted for publication of first authors affiliated to Asia, Africa or South America and those affiliated to upper/lower-middle and low country-income group, indicates poor representation of global scientists' opinion and supports growing demands for improving equity, diversity and inclusion in biomedical research. The more diverse the countries and incomes of the first and last authors, the greater the chances of the publication being accepted.
    Keywords:  Leadership; Medical; Methods; Publishing; Sociology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113083
  14. Clin Teach. 2025 Feb;22(1): e70009
    How to … Build a Peer Reviewer Community in Health Professions Education.
    Jun Jie Lim, Laura Cheetham, Christopher J Graham, Agata Anna Dunsmore, Aileen Barrett.
      Peer review is the cornerstone of academic publishing that upholds the quality and integrity of scholarly work. However, there is an ever-growing struggle to recruit peer reviewers, termed the 'peer review crisis', driven by a shrinking academic workforce and increased workload. Additionally, there is a notable lack of standardised training for peer reviewers which poses a challenge in maintaining high-quality reviews. In this 'How to …' paper, we demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of establishing a community of practice (CoP) aimed at fostering professional development among multiprofessional early-career scholars in health professions education. A CoP is structured around three core components: domain, community and practice. This community's domain focuses on recruiting scholars with a shared interest in health professions education, research and peer review. The community's component promotes inclusive and regular interactions through synchronous meetings and asynchronous communication, encouraging engagement, mutual learning and collaboration among diverse participants. Practice is cultivated through peer-led teaching sessions and the use of digital platforms, enabling participants to build peer review competencies collaboratively. Based on our experience as participants in the Association for the Studies of Medical Education (ASME) and The Clinical Teacher (TCT) awarded programme of professional development in educational research and peer review, we propose that this model may help other institutional health professions education groups and journals adopt similar practices. Providing early-career scholars with opportunities to develop academic skills will not only help create a sustainable, high-quality pool of peer reviewers but also cultivate a more inclusive and skilled scholarly community.
    Keywords:  community of practice; early‐career scholars; health professions education; mentorship; peer review; peer reviewer training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.70009
  15. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Dec 26.
    Collaborative approaches to integrating large language models in academic writing.
    Shunsuke Koga, Wei Du.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; academic writing; artificial intelligence; ethical considerations; large language models; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.16110
  16. Brain Commun. 2025 ;7(1): fcae450
    Data management (and sharing) in neuroscience: balancing possible, practical and perfect solutions.
    Tara L Spires-Jones.
      Our editor discusses re-organizing her lab's data storage to facilitate sharing and archiving data. She also advertises the 'Brain Communications' early career researcher paper prize for the first author of a paper published in the journal in 2024-please send nominations!
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcae450
  17. Trials. 2024 Dec 20. 25(1): 843
    Time to look beyond (and before) journal reporting requirements: a review of ethnicity reporting in UK clinical trial results publications in three high-impact journals.
    Mahwar Khanum, Shoba Dawson, Jhulia Dos Santos, Huda Hajinur, Carmel Conefrey, Sangeetha Paramasivan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08596-7
  18. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Dec 24. 24(1): 1526
    Trends in scientific publication among dental students at a private Peruvian university: a seven-year characterization.
    Cesar D Rojas-Senador, María Claudia Garcés-Elías, Roberto A León-Manco.
       BACKGROUND: For health science students, publishing in scientific journals is a significant milestone that can positively impact their professional careers, providing recognition and credibility within the academic and professional community. However, despite the apparent increase in scientific production among undergraduate dental students in Latin America and the Caribbean, it remains low compared to other regions. The study aimed to determine the frequency of publication in scientific journals of the documents to obtain the professional title of dental surgeon by undergraduate dental students at a private Peruvian university over seven years.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study considered all records of theses required for the professional title of dental surgeon from the Faculty of Dentistry at a private Peruvian university, as published in its institutional repository between 2017 and 2023. The main variable of the study was publication in scientific journals. In contrast, the year of formal submission of the document to obtain the professional title of dental surgeon, the type of document, the modality of obtaining the professional title, the area of dental specialty according to the American Dental Association, the year of publication, international indexing, impact factor (IF), and journal's quartile ranking were considered as covariates. Descriptive analysis was conducted to obtain absolute and relative frequencies.
    RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2023, 246 documents for the professional title of dental surgeon were published in the institutional repository of a Peruvian university, of which 23 were subsequently published in scientific journals. Of these, 20 (86.96%) were published in internationally indexed scientific journals, 1 (5.00%) was published in journals with an IF ≥ 2, and 2 (10.00%) were published in Q2 category journals.
    CONCLUSIONS: The seven-year analysis reveals significant challenges in converting undergraduate dental research at a Peruvian university into published scientific literature, with low rates of research documents achieving publication in scientific journals.
    Keywords:  Academic dissertations; Dentistry; Educational activities; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06559-9
  19. J Med Ethics. 2024 Dec 23. 51(1): 1-2
    Medical ethics in China and making tacit publication criteria explicit: tips on getting your paper accepted.
    John McMillan, Julian Savulescu.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics, Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110623
  20. BMJ Ment Health. 2024 Dec 22. pii: e301333. [Epub ahead of print]27(1):
    Data sharing in circadian rhythm and mental health research: current status, challenges, recommendations and future directions.
    Haya Deeb, Tomasz Zieliński, Andrew J Millar.
      Data sharing is a cornerstone of modern scientific research, playing a critical role in fostering greater collaboration, enhancing reproducibility, transparency and efficiency of scientific discoveries, and integrating diverse data sources. In circadian rhythm research, data sharing is particularly important due to the complexity and heterogeneity of the data, which includes molecular profiles, physiological measurements, clinical data and sensor-based data. UK research funders, such as Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation, have established data-sharing policies to promote open science and enhance research transparency. Despite these policies, a recent assessment within the UK Circadian Mental Health Network (CMHN), which incorporates an analysis of publications from several countries, revealed that data sharing remains limited. Significant challenges including data complexity, privacy and ethical considerations, technical issues and entrenched academic culture are major barriers to progress. This perspective article highlights the current state of data sharing in circadian and mental health research, identifies key obstacles and compares these practices with broader trends. We also provide insights from principal investigators within the CMHN on the reasons for limited data sharing. To address these challenges, researchers can foster a culture of openness by seeking training, planning ahead in ethics processes and data management plans and using data outputs in research assessment. We outline CMHN's future plans to deliver training on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable principles, offer data curation services and provide ethical guidelines. By adopting these strategies, we aim to improve data-sharing practices, ultimately advancing our understanding of circadian rhythms and their implications for mental health.
    Keywords:  data interpretation, statistical; psychiatry; sleep
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301333
  21. Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Dec 16. pii: S0735-6757(24)00708-3. [Epub ahead of print]89 159-168
    Evaluating data sharing statements in leading emergency medicine journals: A mixed methods review.
    Faith Hendrickson, M D Hossain, Jacob Duncan, Brody Dennis, Alex Hagood, Taylor Gardner, Eli Oldham, Eli Paul, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine remains as the front line of healthcare, providing acute care to a diverse population during urgent and critical moments. Our objective was to systematically quantify the prevalence of data sharing statements (DSS) in high-impact emergency medicine journals and assess their implementation by contacting corresponding authors who indicated data available upon request.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to identify the prevalence and content of data sharing statements in clinical studies published in high impact emergency medicine journals between 2018 and 2023, followed by a hierarchical logistic regression analysis to identify variables impacting the incorporation of data sharing statements into emergency medicine studies. Lastly, we conducted a thematic analysis of the data sharing statements extracted from our included sample to identify prevailing themes.
    RESULTS: Of the 875 articles reviewed, only 84 (9.6 %) included DSS. DSS prevalence increased over time, from 2.12 % (4/189) in 2018 to 23.71 % (23/97) in 2023. Studies without listed funding sources were significantly less likely to include DSS (estimate = -2.027, p = 0.000). Articles published by BioMed Central (mean effect = 2.497) were more likely to include DSS compared to other publishers. Our review of the DSS content revealed prevailing themes, such as gatekeeper role and conditional data availability, concerning the oversight and regulation of information and the stipulations for data sharing based on certain criteria.
    CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a lack of adherence to DSS, with a slight improvement recently. Listed funding sources and publishers influence DSS presence, highlighting their policy impacts on open science. Our recommendations include increased funding for data sharing, implementation of FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets) principles, and encouraging DSS inclusion as a publication requirement to enhance transparency and reproducibility, improving patient care. Further research needs to address barriers to data sharing and develop sustainable solutions in a dynamic research environment.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Data sharing statements; Emergency medicine; Open science; Reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.12.027
  22. Hastings Cent Rep. 2024 Dec;54 Suppl 2 S73-S83
    Can Open Science Advance Health Justice? Genomic Research Dissemination in the Evolving Data-Sharing Landscape.
    Stephanie A Kraft, Kathleen F Mittendorf.
      Scientific data-sharing and open science initiatives are increasingly important mechanisms for advancing the impact of genomic research. These mechanisms are being implemented as growing attention is paid to the need to improve the inclusion of research participants from marginalized and underrepresented groups. Together, these efforts aim to promote equitable advancements in genomic medicine. However, if not guided by community-informed protections, these efforts may harm the very participants and communities they aim to benefit. This essay examines potential benefits and harms of open science and explores how to advance a more just vision of open science in genomics. Drawing on relational ethics frameworks, we argue that researchers should consider their obligations to participants as well as the broader communities that are impacted by their research. We propose eight strategies to provide a foundation of practical steps for researchers to reduce the possibility of harms stemming from open science and to work toward genomic justice.
    Keywords:  data sharing; genomics; health equity; open science; relational ethics; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.4932
  23. Rinsho Shinkeigaku. 2024 Dec 21.
    [Summarising a case you experienced: how to write an abstract effectively].
    Akiyuki Hiraga.
      Just like the title, a well-written abstract is crucial for submitting your case report to conferences or medical journals. Authors should write the abstract following four key principles. First, one should be guided by the ABCs of writing-accurate, brief, and clear. Do not include unnecessary information. Second, the abstract is not the preview. Abstracts should be stand-alone. Do not write 'we report this case, adding discussion with the literature' or 'additional cases are needed in future' at the end of the abstract. Third, do not simply focus on the rarity of the case. Avoid writing statements such as 'we report this case because it is a rare, valuable/worthful case'. The abstract of a case needs a clear 'learning point' for readers. Lastly, carefully confirm and follow the guidelines of target conferences or journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5692/clinicalneurol.cn-002034
  24. Health Educ Behav. 2024 Dec 27. 10901981241308518
    Embracing the Digital Era for Greater Impact and Accessibility.
    Jesus Ramirez-Valles.
      As we stand at the cusp of a transformative era in scholarly publishing, it is with great anticipation and excitement that we announce Health Education & Behavior (HE&B) will transition to an exclusively online format starting in 2025. This decision aligns with our commitment to sustainability, accessibility, and leveraging digital advancements to enhance the dissemination of vital public health research.
    Keywords:  communication technology; e-health; internet; new media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981241308518
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒12‒29 at 20:23.