bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2020‒02‒09
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Communication, collaboration and cooperation can stop the 2019 coronavirus.
  2. A disclosure form for work submitted to medical journals: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
  3. What the hashtag? Using twitter and podcasting to extend your scientific reach.
  4. Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial.
  5. FAIR your data.
  6. Advertising in medical journals.
  7. Genomics: data sharing needs an international code of conduct.
  8. Clarification of False-Positive Reporting Language in an Original Investigation.
  9. Being honest with causal language in writing for publication.
  10. Create and empower lead authors from the global south.
  11. In Defense of Peer Review.
  12. Rigor and reproducibility for data analysis and design in the behavioral sciences.
  13. Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices.
  14. Clarification of False-Positive Reporting Language in an Editorial.
  15. Double-blind Peer Review in JOGC.
  16. Predatory publishing on the rise.
  17. Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.
  18. The undercover academic keeping tabs on 'predatory' publishing.
  19. First predatory journals, now conferences: The need to establish lists of fake conferences.
  20. Children and infants must be welcome at scientific conferences, say scientist-parents.
  21. Steer clear of honorary authorship.
  22. Sensationalism and speaking to the public: Scientific rigour and interdisciplinary collaborations in palaeopathology.
  23. Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: past, present, and future.
  24. Le JOGC adopte la révision par les pairs à double insu.
  25. How to Read, Write, and Review the Imaging Literature.
  26. People will not trust unkind science.
  27. The Biological Structure Model Archive (BSM-Arc): an archive for in silico models and simulations.
  28. [Stay true to the mission, and publish a world-class article to academic journal].
  29. Bad science in a plastic world.
  30. Reporting methods of observational cohort studies in CMI.
  1. Nat Med. 2020 Feb 03.
    Communication, collaboration and cooperation can stop the 2019 coronavirus.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0775-x
  2. N Z Med J. 2020 Feb 07. 133(1509): 6-8
    A disclosure form for work submitted to medical journals: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
    Darren B Taichman, Joyce Backus, Christopher Baethge, Howard Bauchner, Annette Flanagin, Fernando Florenzano, Frank A Frizelle, Fiona Godlee, Laragh Gollogly, Abraham Haileamlak, Sung-Tae Hong, Richard Horton, Astrid James, Christine Laine, Pamela W Miller, Anja Pinborg, Eric J Rubin, Peush Sahni.
      
  3. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020 Feb 03.
    What the hashtag? Using twitter and podcasting to extend your scientific reach.
    Lisa M Bodnar, Matthew P Fox.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12630
  4. Nature. 2020 02;578(7793): 8
    Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00309-9
  5. Nat Methods. 2020 Feb;17(2): 127
    FAIR your data.
    Lin Tang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0742-y
  6. Climacteric. 2020 Apr;23(2): 107-108
    Advertising in medical journals.
    Rod Baber.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2020.1712827
  7. Nature. 2020 02;578(7793): 31-33
    Genomics: data sharing needs an international code of conduct.
    Mark Phillips, Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor, Jan O Korbel, Adrian Thorogood, Yann Joly, Don Chalmers, David Townend, Bartha M Knoppers.
      
    Keywords:  Cancer; Databases; Genomics; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00082-9
  8. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 01. 180(2): 338
    Clarification of False-Positive Reporting Language in an Original Investigation.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7033
  9. J Adv Nurs. 2020 Feb 04.
    Being honest with causal language in writing for publication.
    Deependra K Thapa, Denis C Visentin, Glenn E Hunt, Roger Watson, Michelle Cleary.
      The misleading use of causal language in publication is problematic for authors, reviewers, and consumers of the information. Published research in quality journals has important knowledge implications and it is, therefore, contingent on authors to use language that is accurate and appropriate to their work. Language implying unsupported causal relationships may overstate the evidence-base, especially if accepted by uncritical readers or unwitting members of the general public who may not understand how to interpret inferential statistics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14311
  10. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7697): 443
    Create and empower lead authors from the global south.
    Anton Nurcahyo, Erik Meijaard.
      
    Keywords:  Conservation biology; Developing world; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03392-1
  11. Surg Innov. 2020 Feb 01. 1553350620902349
    In Defense of Peer Review.
    Ajita S Prabhu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620902349
  12. Behav Res Ther. 2020 Jan 16. pii: S0005-7967(20)30003-6. [Epub ahead of print]126 103552
    Rigor and reproducibility for data analysis and design in the behavioral sciences.
    Tom Hildebrandt, Jason M Prenoveau.
      The rigor and reproducibility of science methods depends heavily on the appropriate use of statistical methods to answer research questions and make meaningful and accurate inferences based on data. The increasing analytic complexity and valuation of novel statistical and methodological approaches to data place greater emphasis on statistical review. We will outline the controversies within statistical sciences that threaten rigor and reproducibility of research published in the behavioral sciences and discuss ongoing approaches to generate reliable and valid inferences from data. We outline nine major areas to consider for generally evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of published articles and apply this framework to the 116 Behaviour Research and Therapy (BRAT) articles published in 2018. The results of our analysis highlight a pattern of missing rigor and reproducibility elements, especially pre-registration of study hypotheses, links to statistical code/output, and explicit archiving or sharing data used in analyses. We recommend reviewers consider these elements in their peer review and that journals consider publishing results of these rigor and reproducibility ratings with manuscripts to incentivize authors to publish these elements with their manuscript.
    Keywords:  Big data; P-hacking; Reliability; Reproducibility; Statistics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103552
  13. Sports Med. 2020 Feb 04.
    Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices.
    Aaron R Caldwell, Andrew D Vigotsky, Matthew S Tenan, Rémi Radel, David T Mellor, Andreas Kreutzer, Ian M Lahart, John P Mills, Matthieu P Boisgontier, .
      The primary means of disseminating sport and exercise science research is currently through journal articles. However, not all studies, especially those with null findings, make it to formal publication. This publication bias towards positive findings may contribute to questionable research practices. Preregistration is a solution to prevent the publication of distorted evidence resulting from this system. This process asks authors to register their hypotheses and methods before data collection on a publicly available repository or by submitting a Registered Report. In the Registered Report format, authors submit a stage 1 manuscript to a participating journal that includes an introduction, methods, and any pilot data indicating the exploratory or confirmatory nature of the study. After a stage 1 peer review, the manuscript can then be offered in-principle acceptance, rejected, or sent back for revisions to improve the quality of the study. If accepted, the project is guaranteed publication, assuming the authors follow the data collection and analysis protocol. After data collection, authors re-submit a stage 2 manuscript that includes the results and discussion, and the study is evaluated on clarity and conformity with the planned analysis. In its final form, Registered Reports appear almost identical to a typical publication, but give readers confidence that the hypotheses and main analyses are less susceptible to bias from questionable research practices. From this perspective, we argue that inclusion of Registered Reports by researchers and journals will improve the transparency, replicability, and trust in sport and exercise science research. The preprint version of this work is available on SportR[Formula: see text]iv: https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/fxe7a/.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1
  14. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 01. 180(2): 338
    Clarification of False-Positive Reporting Language in an Editorial.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7032
  15. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Feb;pii: S1701-2163(19)31109-0. [Epub ahead of print]42(2): 111-112
    Double-blind Peer Review in JOGC.
    Togas Tulandi, Kristen Hines.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.11.066
  16. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2020 Jan-Mar;63(1):63(1): 5-6
    Predatory publishing on the rise.
    Ranjan Agrawal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.277433
  17. Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 05.
    Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.
    Durga Prasanna Misra, Vikas Agarwal.
      The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day. Careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders. Recent instances of lack of appropriate research ethics committee overview, or participant consent for inclusion in the research study, or a case report, resulting in retractions, emphasize the need for greater awareness regarding these ethical aspects. Authors should strive to avoid redundancy, especially for review articles, both systematic and narrative. Clinical trial registration before commencing enrolment is mandatory as per contemporary norms. Transparent declaration of authorship contributions as well as appropriate attribution of authorship are recommended, since these may help avoid subsequent authorship conflicts. Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial. Unbiased peer review is a critical part of editorial decision making; recent instances of peer review fraud have resulted in numerous retractions of scientific papers. Any reproduction of text, figures, or tables should be with due attribution to source, and after seeking permission of the copyright holder. Citations to published work should be relevant and diverse. Research assessment should rely on the assessment of quality of published work, rather than mere citation analyses. Authors should beware predatory, low-quality journals, and utilize social media channels to ethically promote their research with due consideration to privacy and copyright. Rheumatology societies should collaborate to develop guidelines for ethical research reporting, and educate young scientists regarding these principles.
    Keywords:  Citation analysis; Conflicts of interest; Ethics; Peer review; Plagiarism; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-04965-0
  18. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7697): 422-423
    The undercover academic keeping tabs on 'predatory' publishing.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02921-2
  19. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jan 28. pii: S0048-9697(20)30500-3. [Epub ahead of print]715 136990
    First predatory journals, now conferences: The need to establish lists of fake conferences.
    Christian Sonne, Yong Sik Ok, Su Shiung Lam, Jörg Rinklebe, Aage K O Alstrup, Ki-Hyun Kim.
      Science of the Total Environment recently discussed how open access and predatory journals affect the flow of scientific knowledge in an unfortunate way. Now, South Korea's Ministry of Education is intervening to establish a system that will help its researchers avoid the growing global number of fake conferences of low academic and scientific merit. Here, we discuss solutions to this problem with respect to what is needed. Particularly, a list similar to that of Beall's for predatory conferences, without restricting researchers' academic freedom.
    Keywords:  Academic freedom; Knowledge exchange; Overseas; Predatory conferences
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136990
  20. Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7697): 551
    Children and infants must be welcome at scientific conferences, say scientist-parents.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Conferences and meetings
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03307-0
  21. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019 Dec;6(4): 297-300
    Steer clear of honorary authorship.
    Richard Ricky Villar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz064
  22. Int J Paleopathol. 2020 Feb 03. pii: S1879-9817(20)30003-6. [Epub ahead of print]28 88-91
    Sensationalism and speaking to the public: Scientific rigour and interdisciplinary collaborations in palaeopathology.
    Anne Marie E Snoddy, Julia Beaumont, Hallie R Buckley, Antony Colombo, Siân E Halcrow, Rebecca L Kinaston, Melandri Vlok.
      OBJECTIVES: In this brief communication we discuss issues concerning scientific rigour in palaeopathological publications, particularly studies published in clinical or general science journals, that employ skeletal analysis to elucidate the lives and deaths of historical figures or interpret "mysterious" assemblages or burials. We highlight the relationship between poor methodological rigour and lack of interdisciplinary communication, and discuss how this can result in scientifically weak, sensational narratives being presented to the public.CONCLUSIONS: Although most high profile publications involving analysis of archaeological human remains are methodologically sound and well interpreted, others have suffered from poor scientific rigour stemming from an apparent lack of awareness of anthropological methods and ethics. When these publications are highlighted by the press, sensationalistic narratives are perpetuated which may reflect poorly on our discipline and give the public unrealistic expectations about our work.
    SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: We suggest that best practice in high-profile paleopathological research include recruitment of a range of authors and reviewers from clinical sciences, anthropology, and the humanities, consideration of the ethical issues surrounding retrospective diagnosis, and transparency with the press in regards to the limitations inherent in this kind of work.
    Keywords:  Bioarchaeology; Media; Science communication; Scientific methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2020.01.003
  23. Disasters. 2020 Feb 07.
    Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: past, present, and future.
    David Alexander, J C Gaillard, Ilan Kelman, Fausto Marincioni, Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Dewald van Niekerk, Lauren J Vinnell.
      Nowadays there are approximately 80 Anglophone journals that deal primarily with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and allied fields. This large array signals a sustained, if uneven, growth in DRR scholarship but also competition between the offerings of different publishers and institutions. The purpose of this article is first to summarise the development of academic publishing on DRR from its early beginnings to the present day. The paper then evaluates the current state of publishing in this field and discusses possible future trends. Next, it identifies some possible opportunities, challenges, expectations, and commitments for journal editors both within DRR and academia more broadly, including those that refer to changes in the use of terminology, the relentless increase in the number of papers submitted, the expansion and dangers of predatory journals, different peer review models, open access versus paywalls, citations and bibliography metrics, academic social networks, and copyright and distribution issues.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; disaster risk reduction; journals; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12432
  24. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Feb;pii: S1701-2163(19)31145-4. [Epub ahead of print]42(2): 113-114
    Le JOGC adopte la révision par les pairs à double insu.
    Togas Tulandi, Kristen Hines.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.12.003
  25. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2020 Jan 09. pii: S0363-0188(20)30007-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    How to Read, Write, and Review the Imaging Literature.
    Arielle Sasson, Oseogie Okojie, Ryan Verano, Mariam Moshiri, Michael N Patlas, Jason C Hoffmann, John J Hines, Douglas S Katz.
      Everyone at all levels in academic radiology is supposed to know how to read an original research article or a review article and to evaluate it critically, to participate in writing such manuscripts, and, as one becomes more senior, to participate in the peer review process, yet there is little formal teaching in our experience as to how to do these inter-related activities throughout radiology training. The purpose of this review article is therefore to provide our perspective - from the junior trainee to the senior radiology attending - as to how one should be reading, reviewing, and writing the imaging literature, and also providing guidance from other thought leaders in this area, and from the literature itself. We hope to inspire radiology trainees and radiologists at all levels, particularly those in academic careers, to more fully participate in peer review and in radiology publication.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2020.01.002
  26. Nature. 2020 02;578(7793): 9
    People will not trust unkind science.
    Gail Cardew.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Ethics; Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00269-0
  27. Biophys Rev. 2020 Feb 05.
    The Biological Structure Model Archive (BSM-Arc): an archive for in silico models and simulations.
    Gert-Jan Bekker, Takeshi Kawabata, Genji Kurisu.
      We present the Biological Structure Model Archive (BSM-Arc, https://bsma.pdbj.org), which aims to collect raw data obtained via in silico methods related to structural biology, such as computationally modeled 3D structures and molecular dynamics trajectories. Since BSM-Arc does not enforce a specific data format for the raw data, depositors are free to upload their data without any prior conversion. Besides uploading raw data, BSM-Arc enables depositors to annotate their data with additional explanations and figures. Furthermore, via our WebGL-based molecular viewer Molmil, it is possible to recreate 3D scenes as shown in the corresponding scientific article in an interactive manner. To submit a new entry, depositors require an ORCID ID to login, and to finally publish the data, an accompanying peer-reviewed paper describing the work must be associated with the entry. Submitting their data enables researchers to not only have an external backup but also provide an opportunity to promote their work via an interactive platform and to provide third-party researchers access to their raw data.
    Keywords:  Archive; Database; Homology modeling; Molecular dynamics; Raw data; Sharing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-020-00632-5
  28. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Jan 20. 28(1): 1-2
    [Stay true to the mission, and publish a world-class article to academic journal].
    H Ren.
      
    Keywords:  Message; Plan; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2020.01.001
  29. J R Soc Med. 2020 Feb;113(2): 47
    Bad science in a plastic world.
    Kamran Abbasi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820905749
  30. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jan 29. pii: S1198-743X(20)30049-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reporting methods of observational cohort studies in CMI.
    Mical Paul, Angela Huttner, Julia A Bielicki, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño, Andre C Kalil, Mariska M G Leeflang, Luigia Scudeller, Leonard Leibovici.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.01.024
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:24.