bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒09‒01
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Response to letter to the editor from Fahmi Kakamad, Abdulwahid Salih, and Hiwa Omer Baba Re: Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals.
  2. Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing.
  3. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database.
  4. Scientific impact and the quest for visibility.
  5. Has the Time Come for Preprints in Chemistry?
  6. Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility.
  7. Changing the Way We Report, Interpret, and Discuss Our Results to Rebuild Trust in Our Research.
  8. Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists.
  9. Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.
  10. Financing open-access publication after 2024.
  11. Chemistry, Screening, and the Democracy of Publishing.
  12. Value pluralism in research integrity.
  13. Accredit scientific software for sustainability.
  14. Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data.
  15. Publishing Preprints.
  16. Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review.
  17. An Homage to Peer Reviewers: Strengthening Our "Bundle of Sticks".
  18. Career thoughts and recollections: 50 years of publishing in the Journal of General Virology.
  1. Nurs Outlook. 2019 Aug 24. pii: S0029-6554(19)30460-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Response to letter to the editor from Fahmi Kakamad, Abdulwahid Salih, and Hiwa Omer Baba Re: Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals.
    Marilyn H Oermann, Leslie H Nicoll, Heather Carter-Templeton, Kathleen S Ashton, Peggy L Chinn, Alison H Edie.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.07.006
  2. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019 Aug 29. 1534734619870083
    Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing.
    Miltos K Lazarides, Evangelia Gougoudi, Nikolaos Papanas.
      The objective of medical research is the quest for scientific truth, as well as the communication of new knowledge to the medical society through publication of novel results. Journals publishing these results rely on the trust that all persons involved (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers) remain honest, following the rules and ethics of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and a wide spectrum of pitfalls and misconducts may occur, ranging from less serious violations of ethical rules to most serious ones. In ascending order of severity, these include borderline questionable practices (HARKing [Hypothesizing After the Results are Known] and hyping), redundant publications, authorship misconducts, plagiarism, and all types of fraud (data falsification or fabrication). Awareness of all these fraudulent practices is essential to mitigate misconduct in academic writing.
    Keywords:  duplicate publication; fraud; medical writing; plagiarism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734619870083
  3. Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7771): 578-579
    Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database.
    Richard Van Noorden, Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Ethics; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7
  4. FEBS J. 2019 Aug 29.
    Scientific impact and the quest for visibility.
    Ralitsa R Madsen.
      Current biomedical science is governed by an 'economy of attention' which has led to adoption of unhealthy research practices. From a junior scientist's perspective, such practices distort academic assessment and threaten the collective advancement of scientific knowledge. The Open Science movement promises to change this, provided that all scientists - irrespective of career stage - get on board.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15043
  5. ACS Omega. 2017 Nov 30. 2(11): 7923-7928
    Has the Time Come for Preprints in Chemistry?
    Piera Demma Carà, Rosaria Ciriminna, Mario Pagliaro.
      Chemistry is among the last of the core natural sciences to embrace preprints, namely, the publication of non peer-reviewed scientific articles on the Internet. After a brief insight into the origins and the purpose of preprints in science, we conducted a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, aiming at providing an answer to several questions. Why has the chemistry community been late in embracing preprints? Is this in relation with the slow acceptance of open-access publishing by the same community? Will preprints become a common habit also for chemistry scholars?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b01190
  6. J Biomol Tech. 2019 Jul 25. pii: jbt.19-3003-001. [Epub ahead of print]
    Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility.
    Kevin L Knudtson, Robert H Carnahan, Rebecca L Hegstad-Davies, Nancy C Fisher, Belynda Hicks, Peter A Lopez, Susan M Meyn, Sheenah M Mische, Frances Weis-Garcia, Lisa D White, Katia Sol-Church.
      Shared scientific resources, also known as core facilities, support a significant portion of the research conducted at biomolecular research institutions. The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) established the Committee on Core Rigor and Reproducibility (CCoRRe) to further its mission of integrating advanced technologies, education, and communication in the operations of shared scientific resources in support of reproducible research. In order to first assess the needs of the scientific shared resource community, the CCoRRe solicited feedback from ABRF members via a survey. The purpose of the survey was to gain information on how U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiatives on advancing scientific rigor and reproducibility influenced current services and new technology development. In addition, the survey aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities related to implementation of new reporting requirements and to identify new practices and resources needed to ensure rigorous research. The results revealed a surprising unfamiliarity with the NIH guidelines. Many of the perceived challenges to the effective implementation of best practices (i.e., those designed to ensure rigor and reproducibility) were similarly noted as a challenge to effective provision of support services in a core setting. Further, most cores routinely use best practices and offer services that support rigor and reproducibility. These services include access to well-maintained instrumentation and training on experimental design and data analysis as well as data management. Feedback from this survey will enable the ABRF to build better educational resources and share critical best-practice guidelines. These resources will become important tools to the core community and the researchers they serve to impact rigor and transparency across the range of science and technology.
    Keywords:  core; reproducibility; rigor; shared resource; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7171/jbt.19-3003-001
  7. eNeuro. 2019 Jul-Aug;6(4):pii: ENEURO.0259-19.2019. [Epub ahead of print]6(4):
    Changing the Way We Report, Interpret, and Discuss Our Results to Rebuild Trust in Our Research.
    Christophe Bernard.
      eNeuro is moving forward with a new initiative asking authors to present their results with estimation statistics and not to rely solely on p values. In this editorial, I would like to introduce to you the concept of this new statistics while first discussing my evaluation of the present situation and my own experience with using statistics to interpret results, then I will propose a solution and how we will move forward in the journal. I have also included my own experience using these new statistics and provided a list of resources. This new initiative will not change what is already acceptable for statistics in the journal; it is to encourage a simple addition of using estimation statistics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0259-19.2019
  8. F1000Res. 2019 ;8 87
    Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists.
    Matthieu Schapira, , Rachel J Harding.
      The fundamental goal of the growing open science movement is to increase the efficiency of the global scientific community and accelerate progress and discoveries for the common good. Central to this principle is the rapid disclosure of research outputs in open-access peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers. The next bold step in this direction is open laboratory notebooks, where research scientists share their research - including detailed protocols, negative and positive results - online and in near-real-time to synergize with their peers. Here, we highlight the benefits of open lab notebooks to science, society and scientists, and discuss the challenges that this nascent movement is facing. We also present the implementation and progress of our own initiative at openlabnotebooks.org, with more than 20 active contributors after one year of operation.
    Keywords:  open lab notebooks; open science; peer-review; preprints; publishing; science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17710.1
  9. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 30. 21(8): e13769
    Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.
    Andrew J Cohen, German Patino, Puneet Kamal, Medina Ndoye, Anas Tresh, Jorge Mena, Christi Butler, Samuel Washington, Benjamin N Breyer.
      BACKGROUND: Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.
    METHODS: Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.
    RESULTS: A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.
    CONCLUSIONS: Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.
    Keywords:  citation; global; literature; open access publication; predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/13769
  10. Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7771): 586
    Financing open-access publication after 2024.
    John-Arne Røttingen, David Sweeney.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02547-y
  11. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2019 ;22(5): 288-289
    Chemistry, Screening, and the Democracy of Publishing.
    Gerald H Lushington.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2174/1386207322999190715161959
  12. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 ;4 18
    Value pluralism in research integrity.
    Rik Peels, Jeroen de Ridder, Tamarinde Haven, Lex Bouter.
      Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable or incompatible. Codes of conduct typically do not specify how to handle situations where different norms pull in different directions. We review some attempts to develop an ordering of different sorts of norm violations based on a common measure for their seriousness. We argue that they all fail to give adequate guidance for resolving cases of incommensurable and conflicting norms. We conclude that value pluralism is inherent to codes of conduct in research integrity. The application of codes needs careful reasoning and judgment together with an intellectually humble attitude that acknowledges the inevitability of value pluralism.
    Keywords:  Code of conduct; Epistemology; Ethics; Pluralism; Principle; Value; Virtue
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4
  13. Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7771): 586
    Accredit scientific software for sustainability.
    Alexander L R Lubbock.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02549-w
  14. ACS Omega. 2019 Feb 28. 4(2): 3280-3286
    Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data.
    Agustin Barba, Santiago Dominguez, Carlos Cobas, David P Martinsen, Charles Romain, Henry S Rzepa, Felipe Seoane.
      There is an increasing focus on the part of academic institutions, funding agencies, and publishers, if not researchers themselves, on preservation and sharing of research data. Motivations for sharing include research integrity, replicability, and reuse. One of the barriers to publishing data is the extra work involved in preparing data for publication once a journal article and its supporting information have been completed. In this work, a method is described to generate both human and machine-readable supporting information directly from the primary instrumental data files and to generate the metadata to ensure it is published in accordance with findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) guidelines. Using this approach, both the human readable supporting information and the primary (raw) data can be submitted simultaneously with little extra effort. Although traditionally the data package would be sent to a journal publisher for publication alongside the article, the data package could also be published independently in an institutional FAIR data repository. Workflows are described that store the data packages and generate metadata appropriate for such a repository. The methods both to generate and to publish the data packages have been implemented for NMR data, but the concept is extensible to other types of spectroscopic data as well.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005
  15. Nurs Res. 2019 Sep/Oct;68(5):68(5): 337-338
    Publishing Preprints.
    Rita H Pickler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000378
  16. BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 24. 9(8): e029789
    Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review.
    Claire Louise Hutchinson, Angela Berndt, Deborah Forsythe, Susan Gilbert-Hunt, Stacey George, Julie Ratcliffe.
      OBJECTIVES: To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis-traditionally used by business consultants-has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.DESIGN: Systematic review.
    SETTINGS: Community and residential settings.
    PARTICIPANTS: A wide range of demographic groups and age groups.
    RESULTS: The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide.
    CONCLUSION: Academics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals.
    PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018080195.
    Keywords:  SROI; health economics; social care; social impact; social return on investment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789
  17. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 03. pii: S0735-1097(19)36041-3. [Epub ahead of print]74(9): 1269-1270
    An Homage to Peer Reviewers: Strengthening Our "Bundle of Sticks".
    Valentin Fuster.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.039
  18. J Gen Virol. 2019 Aug 28.
    Career thoughts and recollections: 50 years of publishing in the Journal of General Virology.
    David J Rowlands.
      
    Keywords:  career in virology; foot-and-mouth disease virus; hepatitis C virus; replication; vaccines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001311
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:23.