bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒01‒09
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Peer review and peer reviewers.
  2. Science and Art of Reviewing Papers to Maintain Standards in Academia.
  3. Publishing your scholarship: a survey of pearls from top reviewers.
  4. Manuscript Checklist for a Scientific Publication.
  5. Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
  6. Authors, Reviewers, and Publishers- The Ecosystem for Scientific Documentation: Is this Enough?
  7. Publishing Pandemic-Related Content and Embarking on New Initiatives.
  8. Violation of research integrity principles occurs more often than we think.
  9. From new kid on the block to leading journal: a review and reflection on the first 20 years of the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing.
  10. Using Twitter to promote #orthodontic research and clinical innovations: Practice and challenges.
  11. Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.
  12. Development of a visual abstract template to enhance journal article circulation on social media.
  13. Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for publishing integrated research objects.
  14. Academic standing and publication.
  15. Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.
  16. Broaden your scientific audience with video animation.
  1. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022 Jan;pii: S2211-5684(21)00261-8. [Epub ahead of print]103(1): 1-2
    Peer review and peer reviewers.
    Philippe Soyer.
      
    Keywords:  Impact factor; Peer review; Scholarly journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2021.12.001
  2. Neurol India. 2021 Nov-Dec;69(6):69(6): 1547-1550
    Science and Art of Reviewing Papers to Maintain Standards in Academia.
    Krishnan Ganapathy.
      This review article highlights the necessity and importance of peer review of articles submitted to journals. Publication in a peer reviewed, good impact indexed journal is an indirect endorsement of the article contents. The editor and the readership depend on the integrity and total involvement of reviewers. What is expected of the reviewer and the authors is discussed. Reviewers need to be sensitive to authors' reactions. Authors should also respond, not react or be hypersensitive.
    Keywords:  Peer review and Neurology; Peer review of articles
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.333463
  3. Med Educ Online. 2022 Dec;27(1): 2016561
    Publishing your scholarship: a survey of pearls from top reviewers.
    Joshua Jauregui, Anthony R Artino, Jonathan S Ilgen, Gail Sullivan, Sandrijn M van Schaik.
      Experts have described ways to improve peer review quality. Perspectives from expert reviewers are largely absent in the health professions education literature. To gather guidance from expert reviewers, to aid authors striving to publish and reviewers aiming to perform their task effectively. This study surveyed the Journal of Graduate Medical Education (JGME) 'Top Reviewers' from 2017, 2018, and 2019. 'Top Reviewers' perform four or more reviews per year, with high average ratings. Top reviewers were sent an 11-item survey in February 2020. The survey included three demographic questions and eight open-ended, free-text questions about the concepts reviewers most often target in their reviews. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed a thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Of 62 eligible top reviewers, 44 (71%) responded to the survey. Only eight (18.2%) and seven (15.9%) respondents reported having 'stock phrases' or a reviewer template used for reviewer feedback to authors, respectively. The what (research question, methods), how (presentation, writing), and why (relevance, impact) were the resulting themes summarizing how reviewers categorized and responded to common problems. For 'really good papers' reviewers found the what acceptable and focused on how and why. For 'really bad' papers, reviewers focused on big picture feedback, such as the value of the study. Top reviewers from a single health professions education journal appear to have similar approaches to conducting reviews. While most do not use stock phrases or templates, they share similar strategies to differentiate 'good' vs. 'bad' papers through the what, why, and how of a manuscript.
    Keywords:  Scholarship; feedback; journal reviews; publishing; survey; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.2016561
  4. Semin Ophthalmol. 2022 Jan 03. 1-2
    Manuscript Checklist for a Scientific Publication.
    Mohammad Javed Ali.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2022.2021493
  5. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022 Jan 03. 1-4
    Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
    Holly L Storkel, Frederick J Gallun.
      PURPOSE: This editorial introduces the new registered reports article type for the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. The goal of registered reports is to create a structural solution to address issues of publication bias toward results that are unexpected and sensational, questionable research practices that are used to produce novel results, and a peer-review process that occurs at the end of the research process when changes in fundamental design are difficult or impossible to implement.CONCLUSION: Registered reports can be a positive addition to scientific publications by addressing issues of publication bias, questionable research practices, and the late influence of peer review. This article type does so by requiring reviewers and authors to agree in advance that the experimental design is solid, the questions are interesting, and the results will be publishable regardless of the outcome. This procedure ensures that replication studies and null results make it into the published literature and that authors are not incentivized to alter their analyses based on the results that they obtain. Registered reports represent an ongoing commitment to research integrity and finding structural solutions to structural problems inherent in a research and publishing landscape in which publications are such a high-stakes aspect of individual and institutional success.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00513
  6. Neurol India. 2021 Nov-Dec;69(6):69(6): 1516-1517
    Authors, Reviewers, and Publishers- The Ecosystem for Scientific Documentation: Is this Enough?
    P Sarat Chandra.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.333449
  7. Mayo Clin Proc. 2022 Jan;pii: S0025-6196(21)00889-2. [Epub ahead of print]97(1): 18-19
    Publishing Pandemic-Related Content and Embarking on New Initiatives.
    Karl A Nath.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.11.034
  8. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Dec 03. pii: S1472-6483(21)00595-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Violation of research integrity principles occurs more often than we think.
    Wentao Li, Lyle C Gurrin, Ben W Mol.
      The science community generally believes that the violation of research integrity is rare. Built upon this belief, the scientific system makes little effort to examine the trustworthiness of research. Research misconduct refers to an intentional violation of research integrity principles, which has an extensive and far-reaching impact on the trustworthiness and reputation of science. Emerging evidence has suggested that research misconduct is far more common than we normally perceive. Far more problematic papers should be retracted than are being retracted because of poor actions when confronting research misconduct. Research misconduct is usually driven by incentives in the form of pursuing publications for researchers' career needs and is further facilitated by poor research governance. The current strategy that tackles potential research misconduct focuses on protecting the reputation of authors and their institutions but neglects the interests of patients, clinicians and honest researchers. Removing improper incentives, training researchers and imposing better governance are vital to reducing research misconduct. Awareness of the possibility of misconduct and formalized procedures that scrutinize study trustworthiness are important during peer review and in systematic reviews.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.11.022
  9. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2022 Jan 03. pii: zvab121. [Epub ahead of print]
    From new kid on the block to leading journal: a review and reflection on the first 20 years of the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing.
    Suzanne Fredericks, Liesbet Van Bulck, Chantal Ski, Anne Kathrine Skibelund, Julie Sanders.
      BACKGROUND: This year marks the 20th birthday of the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing (EJCN). The official journal of the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, is now recognized as one of the leading nursing and allied professional journals.AIMS: This article reflects on the developments and impact of the journal over its 20-year lifespan.
    METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a descriptive account of the journal from inception (2002) until present day (2021), using data provided by the EJCN editorial office and extracted from published and available information. In the last 20 years, the EJCN has published 20 volumes, 106 issues, and 1320 papers from 79 countries. The volume and quality of papers has been consistently increasing, culminating in a 2020 impact factor of 3.908, the highest in its history, ranking second for nursing science. Papers are predominantly patient focused with a range of research methods that cover an extensive range of cardiovascular conditions. Authors who contributed to the first issue continued their contribution; 293 articles in total.
    CONCLUSION: The EJCN has evolved into a leading journal of cardiovascular care. As the journal enters its next era, with a new Editor-in-Chief, it is appropriate to have reflected on the phenomenal contribution of the outgoing Editor-in-Chief, and the editorial team, over the last 20 years.
    Keywords:   European Journal Cardiovascular Nursing ; Allied health; Cardiovascular care; Cardiovascular nursing; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab121
  10. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Jan 04. pii: S0889-5406(21)00799-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Using Twitter to promote #orthodontic research and clinical innovations: Practice and challenges.
    Mohamed G Hassan, Sunil Kapila.
      While Twitter has substantial benefits in real-time sharing and dissemination of information and facilitating discussions, currently there is a noticeable absence of its use in the orthodontic profession and peer-reviewed journals. This review aims to introduce the basics of using social media; provide a perspective and prospective vision on effective practices on the use of Twitter in sharing orthodontic discoveries and clinical innovations; and discuss the limitations and caveats of using such approaches in sharing and assimilating information. There has been increasing debate on the potential role of social media, specifically Twitter, in shaping the way scholars and clinicians access, discuss, and disseminate research and clinical innovations. Despite various caveats, such as misinformation, privacy concerns, and unprofessionalism, Twitter can be used to efficiently share discoveries and innovations and facilitate networking. Thus, the use of Twitter during professional orthodontic meetings can enhance their impact by enabling nonattendees to participate in the meeting virtually and in real time. Moreover, utilization of Twitter by peer-reviewed journals can aid in enhancing the dissemination of information. That, with the optimization of algorithms and strategies, can also maximize reach and impact. Future efforts are essential to develop standardized guidelines for the use of Twitter among orthodontic healthcare professionals and scholars to better manage scientific integrity, privacy, and ethical concerns. Professional orthodontic organizations, journals, and researchers should be aware of the potential benefits of Twitter strategies that could be applied to maximize the impact and dissemination of orthodontic discoveries to reach the largest possible audience that will facilitate collaboration and discussion, and advance the delivery of cutting-edge treatments.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.11.009
  11. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Dec 27. pii: S1878-9293(21)00144-4. [Epub ahead of print]53 101055
    Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.
    FIT’NG
      The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT'NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging.
    Keywords:  Baby; Brain development; FIT’NG; MRI acquisition; MRI processing; MRI safety
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055
  12. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2022 Jan-Feb;62(1):pii: S1544-3191(21)00487-8. [Epub ahead of print]62(1): 8-9
    Development of a visual abstract template to enhance journal article circulation on social media.
    Douglas P Lasch, Pamela C Heaton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2021.11.026
  13. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022 Jan;18(1): e1009651
    Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for publishing integrated research objects.
    Elizabeth DuPre, Chris Holdgraf, Agah Karakuzu, Loïc Tetrel, Pierre Bellec, Nikola Stikov, Jean-Baptiste Poline.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009651
  14. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022 Jan 03.
    Academic standing and publication.
    Roger W Byard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-021-00449-y
  15. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 Jan 08.
    Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.
    UnBIAS Research Group
      BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.
    STUDY TYPE: Meta-research.
    POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.
    ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.
    STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.
    RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.
    DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.
    EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
    Keywords:  STARD; conclusion positivity; diagnostic accuracy; meta-research; peer review; publication bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28046
  16. Nature. 2022 Jan 07.
    Broaden your scientific audience with video animation.
    Alvina Lai.
      
    Keywords:  Arts; Careers; Communication; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00045-2
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2022‒01‒12 at 21:42:44.