bims-skolko 2020-01-19 papers

Issue of 2020‒01‒19
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

Elife. 2020 Jan 14. pii: e54265. [Epub ahead of print]9

As Eve Marder stands down as a Deputy Editor of eLife, she reflects on the need for journals to change and respond to their environment.

Keywords: living science; peer review; scientific publishing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54265

Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jan 08. pii: S0048-9697(20)30038-3. [Epub ahead of print] 136528

Response to comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Pourret et al.

Christian Sonne, Rune Dietz, Aage K O Alstrup.

We have read the response to our Discussion about Open Access and predatory journals entitle Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences. The purpose of a Discussion in STOTEN is to inspire for debating and we therefore thank Pourret et al. (2020) for their response to our Discussion about Open Access, Plan S and Open Access Predatory Journals - three topics that concern us as researchers (Sonne et al., 2020).

Keywords: Knowledge; Open access; Plan S; Publication

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136528

Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019 1436-1439

Supervision of M.Sc. theses using the writing of a scientific article as a framework to increase efficiency and quality of research outcomes.

Max Ortiz-Catalan, Alexandra Middleton, Magnus Gustafsson.

The number of published peer-reviewed research articles has increased exponentially in the past decades, as has the degree of competitiveness in scientific publishing. Publication of scientific articles remains the gold standard for measuring research quality. In this context, quality is understood as to how rigorously the scientific method was applied. However, a critical disconnect exists between the continuous channel of projects fed to students by research laboratories, and the scientific quality of outcomes these students produce. Here, we present a process for the supervision of M.Sc. thesis projects conducted in research laboratories with the objective to increase productivity and quality. It is based on an iterative model of writing a scientific article naturally following the scientific method. This approach intends to maximize learning and development for the student, as well as productivity for the research laboratory by facilitating the publication of a peer-reviewed scientific article out of the thesis work.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856364

J Comp Eff Res. 2020 Jan 17.

Biomedical conferences' author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews.

Lenko Saric, Svjetlana Dosenovic, Jakov Mihanovic, Livia Puljak.

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.

Keywords: CONSORT-A; PRISMA-A; biomedical conferences; instructions for authors; reporting guidelines; reporting quality

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0158

Eur J Integr Med. 2019 Dec;pii: 101008. [Epub ahead of print]32

Barriers to the registration and conduct of Cochrane systematic reviews of traditional East Asian medicine therapies.

L Susan Wieland, Ruth Brassington, Geraldine Macdonald.

Introduction: Traditional East Asian medicine (TEAM) is widely used in Asia and increasingly in the West. Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best summaries of the potential benefits or harms of interventions, and Cochrane is a leading international SR organization. Cochrane perspectives on the barriers to the initiation and completion of Cochrane SRs of TEAM therapies were solicited.Methods: Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) were identified from the online listing of CRGs at cochrane.org and a link to an online survey was e-mailed to the primary contact for each CRG.
Results: Forty-eight responses were received on behalf of 49/53 (92%) CRGs. Most CRGs had experience producing TEAM reviews, primarily in acupuncture or herbal medicine. The main barriers to taking on a new TEAM review were difficulty in understanding and assessing the intervention, and the low priority of TEAM topics. Problems with the quality and accessibility of randomized trials in TEAM were cited as a major concern. CRGs suggested that the quality and accessibility of randomized trials should be improved, that the methodological and language expertise of authors should be enhanced, and that further peer review expertise should be made available to CRGs.
Conclusions: TEAM topics are covered in Cochrane reviews but are often considered low-priority. This survey highlights Cochrane concerns about the quality of the underlying evidence base and the training of the author teams as barriers to successful SR completion. Specific approaches are proposed to increase the number of TEAM reviews and address the limitations of TEAM research processes within Cochrane.

Keywords: Cochrane; Traditional East Asian medicine; survey; systematic reviews

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2019.101008

J Postgrad Med. 2020 Jan-Mar;66(1):66(1): 35-37

Supplements to increase trainee-authored publications pertaining to medical education: A graduate's viewpoint.

A Abu-Zaid.

Medical trainees (i.e., students and residents) provide relevantly insightful perspectives pertaining to their 'medical education' at both undergraduate (i.e., medical school) and graduate (i.e., residency training) levels. Therefore, promoting related trainee-authored publications about such matters is critically important. However, unfortunately, not many medical trainees are able to voice their important education-related research findings in peer-reviewed journals. 'Journal-level' proposals to increase trainees' scientific scholarship are always warranted. Herein, medical journals are called to play an innovative pivotal role in further promoting the desired trend of trainee-authored publications. To that end, periodically throughout the year, mainstream (general or education-focused) medical journals are encouraged to facilitate supplements entirely dedicated to trainee-authored research contributions in the field of 'medical education'. The grounds, dynamics, challenges and benefits of this supplement-based approach are discussed.

Keywords: Journal supplement; medical education; medical resident; medical students; research publication

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_403_19

J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2020 Jan;7(1): 010101

Integrating structured abstracts in the Journal of Medical Imaging.

Maryellen Giger.

An editorial by Editor-in-Chief Maryellen Giger explains the journal's transition to structured abstracts.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.7.1.010101

Aesthet Surg J. 2020 Jan 13. pii: sjz359. [Epub ahead of print]

Are Journal Clubs Worth the Effort?

Foad Nahai.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz359