bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒03‒03
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Will Plan S put learned societies in jeopardy?
  2. Plan S: In service or disservice to society?
  3. Should the deceased be listed as authors?
  4. Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.
  5. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
  6. Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.
  7. Careers in Science Publishing.
  8. The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine.
  9. What Makes a Manuscript Worthy of Publication?
  10. Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions.
  11. Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.
  12. Think twice before submitting your precious articles for publication!
  13. ACTIVITY WORKFLOW IN THE PROCESS OF ARTICLE PUBLICATION AND QUALITY CONTROL IN THE JOURNAL ACTA STOMATOLOGICA CROATICA.
  14. Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
  15. In the Future, Data and Code Should Be FAIR.
  16. Developing the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal to support public health research in the Region (Editorial).
  17. An Introduction to Research Work, Scholarship, and Paving a Way to a Career in Academic Medicine.
  18. Teaching the Peer-Reviewed Publishing Process.
  1. FEBS Lett. 2019 Feb;593(4): 383-385
    Will Plan S put learned societies in jeopardy?
    Mary Purton, Francesco Michelangeli, László Fésüs.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13333
  2. Br J Pharmacol. 2019 Mar;176(6): 753-756
    Plan S: In service or disservice to society?
    Tomasz J Guzik, Amrita Ahluwalia.
      The controversial plan for scientific research publications to be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms is discussed. The article has been co-published with permission in European Heart Journal and British Journal of Pharmacology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14590
  3. J Med Ethics. 2019 Mar 01. pii: medethics-2018-105304. [Epub ahead of print]
    Should the deceased be listed as authors?
    Gert Helgesson, William Bülow, Stefan Eriksson, Tove E Godskesen.
      Sometimes participants in research collaboration die before the paper is accepted for publication. The question we raise in this paper is how authorship should be handled in such situations. First, the outcome of a literature survey is presented. Taking this as our starting point, we then go on to discuss authorship of the dead in relation to the requirements of the Vancouver rules. We argue that in principle the deceased can meet the requirements laid down in these authorship guidelines. However, to include a deceased researcher as author requires a strong justification. The more the person has been involved in the research and writing process before he or she passes away, the stronger the justification for inclusion.
    Keywords:  authorship; deceased; research article; researcher
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105304
  4. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 22. 9(2): e023983
    Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.
    Vivienne C Bachelet, Francisco A Uribe, Ruben A Díaz, Alonso F Vergara, Fabiana Bravo-Córdova, Víctor A Carrasco, Francisca J Lizana, Nicolás Meza-Ducaud, María S Navarrete.
      INTRODUCTION: University ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics.
    ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.
    Keywords:  journalology; multiple affiliations; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023983
  5. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Feb 20. pii: S0025-6196(18)30707-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
    Samir Haffar, Fateh Bazerbachi, M Hassan Murad.
      Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces "Skin in the Game" heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
  6. Nurs Forum. 2019 Feb 25.
    Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.
    Alison H Edie, Jamie L Conklin.
      PROBLEM: Nursing is experiencing the growth of predatory journals with questionable peer review processes. These journals publish submissions quickly and do not enhance the authors' reputation and scholarship of nursing.METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive study design examined the legitimacy of the peer-review process described on the websites of predatory nursing journals. Posted review processes (n = 53) were examined for quality indicators related to language use, author control, and transparency.
    FINDINGS: Of the 53 predatory nursing journals describing a peer-review process, the majority indicated that all submitted content was sent for peer review (n = 34, 64.15%). Most journals did not describe the criteria on which submitted articles would be evaluated ( n = 39, 73.58%). Quality indicators for language included multiple grammatical errors and odd language and phrases ( n = 39, 73.58%). Author control of tracking, revisions, and review of galley proofs were inconsistent in the described peer-review processes. The majority did not provide a way to track a manuscript through the process ( n = 29, 54.72%). Most journals did not explain the types of peer review they conducted ( n = 31, 58.49%).
    CONCLUSION: Authors can sidestep the trap of publishing in predatory journals by paying attention to the peer review process when selecting a journal for publication.
    Keywords:  controversy; education; ethics/moral courage; professional issues; quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12333
  7. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2019 Mar 01. pii: a032979. [Epub ahead of print]11(3):
    Careers in Science Publishing.
    John R Inglis.
      Publishing, particularly journal publishing, offers the chance to stay in contact with science and scientists and so appeals to people considering leaving the laboratory for another career. Professional editors of research journals review and select manuscripts for publication, negotiating as needed with authors and referees. Review journal editors commission articles on suitable topics and work with authors to shape manuscripts appropriately for the readership. Experienced individuals may advance to become a Managing Editor and further to a Publisher/Publishing Director position within a company or a not-for-profit organization, with responsibility for the business aspects of a publishing program. Would-be editors must be prepared to broaden their scientific knowledge, engage in person with community members, be tactful but firm in decision making, and work happily in the background. Evidence of a genuine interest in the communication of science beyond the usual writing and publishing of papers is necessary to compete successfully for entry positions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a032979
  8. Semin Nucl Med. 2019 Mar;pii: S0001-2998(18)30098-9. [Epub ahead of print]49(2): 105-114
    The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine.
    Mitch Wilson, David Moher.
      In the early 1970s, when Seminars in Nuclear Medicine started publication, little was known about the quality of reporting in biomedical journals. Senior scholars were invited to become scientific editors of journals based on their research credibility and stature. Their knowledge of journalology (publication science) was not assessed. Similarly, while the use of peer review was gaining momentum, there was limited guidance on the tasks and expectations of peer reviewing. Almost 50 years later, the evidence base regarding the quality of reporting is vast. This paper highlights some of this evidence including that relevant to imaging and nuclear medicine research. In biomedical publications, there is a crisis in reproducibility; high prevalence rates of reporting biases, such as selective outcome reporting; spin; low registration rates of research protocols; and endemic poor reporting of research across biomedicine. These issues and some more immediate solutions are also discussed in the paper. The use of reporting guidelines has been shown to be associated with better reporting of clinical trials and other research articles. The use of audit and feedback tools is likely to provide an important gauge about the functions of biomedical journals. Finally, the push to better equip scientific editors and peer reviewers is taking a more concerted effort.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.009
  9. Nurs Sci Q. 2019 Jan;32(1): 5-6
    What Makes a Manuscript Worthy of Publication?
    Rosemarie Rizzo Parse.
      
    Keywords:  discipline of nursing; manuscripts; nursing science; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318418807930
  10. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 3
    Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions.
    Andrew Grey, Mark Bolland, Greg Gamble, Alison Avenell.
      Background: Academic institutions play important roles in protecting and preserving research integrity. Concerns have been expressed about the objectivity, adequacy and transparency of institutional investigations of potentially compromised research integrity. We assessed the reports provided to us of investigations by three academic institutions of a large body of overlapping research with potentially compromised integrity.Methods: In 2017, we raised concerns with four academic institutions about the integrity of > 200 publications co-authored by an overlapping set of researchers. Each institution initiated an investigation. By November 2018, three had reported to us the results of their investigations, but only one report was publicly available. Two investigators independently assessed each available report using a published 26-item checklist designed to determine the quality and adequacy of institutional investigations of research integrity. Each assessor recorded additional comments ad hoc.
    Results: Concerns raised with the institutions were overlapping, wide-ranging and included those which were both general and publication-specific. The number of potentially affected publications at individual institutions ranged from 34 to 200. The duration of investigation by the three institutions which provided reports was 8-17 months. These investigations covered 14%, 15% and 77%, respectively, of potentially affected publications. Between-assessor agreement using the quality checklist was 0.68, 0.72 and 0.65 for each report. Only 4/78 individual checklist items were addressed adequately: a further 14 could not be assessed. Each report was graded inadequate overall. Reports failed to address publication-specific concerns and focussed more strongly on determining research misconduct than evaluating the integrity of publications.
    Conclusions: Our analyses identify important deficiencies in the quality and reporting of institutional investigation of concerns about the integrity of a large body of research reported by an overlapping set of researchers. They reinforce disquiet about the ability of institutions to rigorously and objectively oversee integrity of research conducted by their own employees.
    Keywords:  Institution; Investigation; Misconduct; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0062-x
  11. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb 27.
    Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.
    Alison Kretser, Delia Murphy, Stefano Bertuzzi, Todd Abraham, David B Allison, Kathryn J Boor, Johanna Dwyer, Andrea Grantham, Linda J Harris, Rachelle Hollander, Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Sarah Rovito, Dorothea Vafiadis, Catherine Woteki, Jessica Wyndham, Rickey Yada.
      A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.
    Keywords:  Culture of integrity; Detrimental research practices; Open science; Quality of research; Research misconduct; Responsible conduct of research (RCR)
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
  12. Rheumatol Int. 2019 Feb 23.
    Think twice before submitting your precious articles for publication!
    Ilke Coskun Benlidayi.
      
    Keywords:  Journal article; Journalism; Medical journalism; Open access publishing; Peer-review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04262-3
  13. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2017 Jun;51(2): 94-98
    ACTIVITY WORKFLOW IN THE PROCESS OF ARTICLE PUBLICATION AND QUALITY CONTROL IN THE JOURNAL ACTA STOMATOLOGICA CROATICA.
    Hrvoje Brkić.
      During the last fifty years the Editorial board of Acta Stomatologica Croatica (ASCRO) has tried to increase journal's quality by introducing quality control in all phases of article editing from the submission to the final publication. We tried to follow the procedures and trends of indexed journals in biomedicine, hereby succeeding in acceptance of ASCRO in six international index databases and the greatest citation database SCOPUS. This article represents the activity workflow for every submission to the journal, from the beginning until the final publication. Average time from submission to publication is three months.
    Keywords:  Acta stomatologica Croatica; School of Dental Medicine University of Zagreb; scientific journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15644/asc51/2/1
  14. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(2): e0211919
    Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Isabel Viguera-Guerra, Juan Ruano, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Ana Montilla, Jose Luis Fernández-Rueda, José Fernández-Chaichio, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Pedro Jesús Gómez-Arias, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, Francisco Gómez-Garcia, Beatriz Isla-Tejera.
      This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms "Systematic review" [Title] AND "protocol" [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published "only in PROSPERO", "only in journals", or in "journals and PROSPERO". Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While "unique protocols" by reviewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of "collaborative protocols". The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in "unique" and "collaborative protocols", less productive countries only participated in "collaborative protocols" that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211919
  15. Cell Syst. 2019 Feb 27. pii: S2405-4712(19)30035-3. [Epub ahead of print]8(2): 95
    In the Future, Data and Code Should Be FAIR.
    Quincey Justman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.02.001
  16. East Mediterr Health J. 2019 Feb 18. 24(12): 1117-1118
    Developing the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal to support public health research in the Region (Editorial).
    Phillip Dingwall, Ahmed Mandil, Arash Rashidian.
      Since 1995, the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal (EMHJ) has sought to publish public health research, regionally and globally, in accordance with the mandate and goals of the World Health Organization (WHO). As part of a family of WHO journals, the EMHJ is an open access public health journal and makes no charge for review or publication of accepted papers, allowing research manuscripts as well as policy-related works from institutions with different financial status an opportunity to be published and remain freely accessible to all. Supporting countries that are developing their health research base remains an important focus for the EMHJ, in line with the WHO Thirteenth General Programme of Work 2019-2023 (GPW13), and its mandate to strengthen research on public health priorities.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.26719/2018.24.12.1117
  17. MedEdPORTAL. 2018 Feb 21. 14 10686
    An Introduction to Research Work, Scholarship, and Paving a Way to a Career in Academic Medicine.
    Carolina Stefany Paredes Molina, Dennis J Spencer, Miguel Morcuende, Maria Soto-Greene, Karissa Culbreath, Leonor Corsino, John P Sánchez.
      Introduction: Despite high faculty attrition and challenges to expanding the number of clinician-researchers, career development to heighten trainees' pursuit of an academic research career remains a relatively understudied topic. Completing peer-reviewed publications during medical school increases a trainee's likelihood of becoming a future faculty member. There is a lack of educational content to guide trainees in selecting research activities, publishing, and gaining self-efficacy to pave a path towards a clinician-researcher track.Methods: The Kern model was applied to create a multimodal workshop that would heighten trainee awareness of various research opportunities, skills for conducting research, best practices in publishing, and also help them develop a personal plan to pursue research. The workshop included a presentation, reflection exercises, and a case scenario. The workshop was implemented among trainees attending professional development conferences at nine medical schools. A questionnaire assessed participants' change in self-efficacy in completing research scholarship and pursuing an academic research career.
    Results: Sixty medical students and seven residents participated in the workshops. Paired-sample t tests indicated a statistically significant increase in participants' perception that academic medicine would allow them to engage in research work, and in their self-efficacy to publish and succeed along a clinician-researcher track.
    Discussion: The workshop not only exposed participants to a variety of research activities but also provided a sense that all research types are valid, aiding some participants to identify new research opportunities. In addition, participants gained clarity on how to publish and develop a research path, which may help maintain interest in a clinician-researcher track.
    Keywords:  Academic Medicine Career; Clinician-Researcher; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10686
  18. J Food Sci. 2019 Mar;84(3): 383
    Teaching the Peer-Reviewed Publishing Process.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14233
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:19.