bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒05‒05
thirteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry.
  2. Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.
  3. Publish and be damned: the damage being created by predatory publishing.
  4. Learning from negative findings.
  5. In Peer (Artificial Intelligence) Review We Trust.
  6. Reducing bias: accounting for the order of co-first authors.
  7. Combating Misrepresentation of Research Findings.
  8. A New Twist in Open Access.
  9. Representation of women on the editorial board of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective analysis from 1954 to 2018.
  10. Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.
  11. Editorial: The role of editors and reviewers.
  12. Policy of the Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (OJPAS®) related to plagiarism.
  13. Biospecimen Data Reporting in the Research Literature.
  1. Cureus. 2019 Feb 19. 11(2): e4098
    Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry.
    James S Huntley.
      Publications in peer-reviewed journals are a key and official requirement for progression to a consultant surgeon post. Paradoxically, a stipulation that should enhance the importance of surgical research may, in fact, contribute to a pressure that is one of the causes of research misconduct. Consultant trainers can go some way to mitigating against this danger with appropriate teaching and an emphasis on the core values surrounding research ethics.
    Keywords:  data falsification; inappropriate authorship; plagiarism; publications; research misconduct; routine activity frame-work; salami-slicing; supervision; supervisor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4098
  2. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(5): e0215962
    Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.
    Katrin Hussinger, Maikel Pellens.
      Increasing complexity and multidisciplinarity make collaboration essential for modern science. This, however, raises the question of how to assign accountability for scientific misconduct among larger teams of authors. Biomedical societies and science associations have put forward various sets of guidelines. Some state that all authors are jointly accountable for the integrity of the work. Others stipulate that authors are only accountable for their own contribution. Alternatively, there are guarantor type models that assign accountability to a single author. We contribute to this debate by analyzing the outcomes of 80 scientific misconduct investigations of biomedical scholars conducted by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). We show that the position of authors on the byline of 184 publications involved in misconduct cases correlates with responsibility for the misconduct. Based on a series of binary regression models, we show that first authors are 38% more likely to be responsible for scientific misconduct than authors listed in the middle of the byline (p<0.01). Corresponding authors are 14% more likely (p<0.05). These findings suggest that a guarantor-like model where first authors are ex-ante accountable for misconduct is highly likely to not miss catching the author responsible, while not afflicting too many bystanders.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215962
  3. Bone Joint J. 2019 May;101-B(5): 500-501
    Publish and be damned: the damage being created by predatory publishing.
    W Angus Wallace.
      
    Keywords:  Misleading medical and surgical information; Open access journals; Poorly refereed articles; Predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B5.BJJ-2018-1330.R1
  4. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 May 01. 8(1): 38
    Learning from negative findings.
    Mark I Taragin.
      A recent IJHPR article by Azulay et al. found no association between the patient activation measure (PAM) and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result. This commentary will use that article as a jumping-off point to discuss why studies sometimes get negative results and how one should interpret such results. It will explore why the Azulay study had negative findings and describe what can be learnt from this study, despite the negative findings.It is important to publish studies with negative findings to know which interventions do not have an effect, avoid publication bias, allow robust meta-analyses, and to encourage sub-analyses to generate new hypotheses.To support these goals authors must submit articles with negative findings with sufficient detail to support the above aims and perform sub-analyses to identify additional relationships that merit study.The commentary will discuss the importance of publishing articles in which the hypothesis is not proven and demonstrate how such articles should be written to maximize learning from their negative findings.
    Keywords:  Negative findings; Negative studies; Study design; Study quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-019-0309-5
  5. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr 25. pii: S0302-2838(19)30290-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    In Peer (Artificial Intelligence) Review We Trust.
    Vincent Misrai, Alexandre de la Taille, Morgan Rouprêt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.011
  6. J Clin Invest. 2019 Apr 29. pii: 128764. [Epub ahead of print]130
    Reducing bias: accounting for the order of co-first authors.
    Arturo Casadevall, Gregg L Semenza, Sarah Jackson, Gordon Tomaselli, Rexford S Ahima.
      Reflecting an increasing emphasis on collaborative science, the number of authors on published articles has markedly risen with time. With this trend, we see an increase in papers designating 2 or more co-first authors. To improve transparency in how such designations are made and reduce bias in the assignment of order, the JCI is now requiring an explanation for how the first-author position is determined when shared among contributing authors.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI128764
  7. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 03. 2(5): e192553
    Combating Misrepresentation of Research Findings.
    Stephan D Fihn.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2553
  8. Nurs Res. 2019 May/Jun;68(3):68(3): 175-176
    A New Twist in Open Access.
    Rita H Pickler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000347
  9. Can J Anaesth. 2019 Apr 29.
    Representation of women on the editorial board of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective analysis from 1954 to 2018.
    Gianni R Lorello, Arun Parmar, Alana M Flexman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01378-9
  10. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 May 01.
    Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.
    Fernando Alfonso, Parounak Zelveian, Jean-Jacques Monsuez, Michael Aschermann, Michael Böhm, Alfonso Buendia Hernandez, Tzung-Dau Wang, Ariel Cohen, Sebija Izetbegovic, Anton Doubell, Dario Echeverri, Nuray Enç, Ignacio Ferreira-González, Anetta Undas, Ulrike Fortmüller, Plamen Gatzov, Carmen Ginghina, Lino Goncalves, Faouzi Addad, Mahmoud Hassanein, Gerd Heusch, Kurt Huber, Robert Hatala, Mario Ivanusa, Chu-Pak Lau, Germanas Marinskis, Livio Dei Cas, Carlos Eduardo Rochitte, Kjell Nikus, Eckart Fleck, Luc Pierard, Slobodan Obradović, María Del Pilar Aguilar Passano, Yangsoo Jang, Olaf Rødevand, Mikael Sander, Evgeny Shlyakhto, Çetin Erol, Dimitris Tousoulis, Dilek Ural, Jan J Piek, Albert Varga, Andreas J Flammer, François Mach, Alban Dibra, Faiq Guliyev, Alexander Mrochek, Mamanti Rogava, Ismael Guzman Melgar, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Kanat Kabdrakhmanov, Laila Haddour, Zlatko Fras, Claes Held, Valentyn Shumakov, .
      The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.
    Keywords:  Accountability; Authorship; Editorial ethics; Journals; Scientific journals; Scientific process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01436-8
  11. Women Birth. 2019 Apr 29. pii: S1871-5192(19)30275-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Editorial: The role of editors and reviewers.
    Virginia Stulz, Shahla Meedya, Linda Sweet.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.04.009
  12. Open J Psychiatry Allied Sci. 2019 Jan-Jun;10(1):10(1): 1-2
    Policy of the Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (OJPAS®) related to plagiarism.
    Samrat Singh Bhandari, Shyamanta Das.
      This editorial highlights the pertinent issue of intentionally or unintentionally using other sources without proper citation in scientific literature and how the journal stringently tries to follow zero tolerance towards such practice with the active cooperation of the authors, reviewers, and editors.
    Keywords:  Citation; Journal; Literature
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-2061.2019.00019.3
  13. Biopreserv Biobank. 2019 Apr 30.
    Biospecimen Data Reporting in the Research Literature.
    Anna J Meredith, Daniel Simeon-Dubach, Lise A Matzke, Stefanie Cheah, Peter H Watson.
      A substantial fraction of biomedical research depends on the reliability of human biospecimens but variations in sample manipulation during collection, processing, and storage can differentially alter molecular integrity and influence interpretation of the resulting derived data. Details of biobanking processes are rarely adequately described in research publications, preventing reviewers, readers, and scientists seeking to replicate the findings, from appreciating and adequately considering preanalytical variations contributing to results. To address these shortcomings, a set of reporting guidelines, the Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ) criteria, were developed in 2011. In this study we evaluated the uptake and reporting of BRISQ criteria in 324 articles across four leading biomedical journals using human biospecimens and published before (161; in 2010) and after (163; in 2014) the delineation of the BRISQ guidelines. We found that even within journals recommending use of BRISQ, manuscript-level uptake. and reporting of the relevant biospecimen information is not widespread or uniform. In the future, an enhanced biospecimen reporting strategy to better serve the needs of researchers, reviewers, and journals may be considered to strengthen research reproducibility for the benefit of the research community at large.
    Keywords:  biobanking; human biospecimens; preanalytical variation; quality; research reproducibility; sustainability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0143
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:20.