bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒08‒21
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Anywhere but here.
  2. Publication and citation inequalities faced by African researchers.
  3. Why scientific conferences must mitigate structural barriers.
  4. Nature's Take: what's next for the preprint revolution.
  5. Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials.
  6. Mechanisms of Peer Review and their Potential Impact on Neurosurgeons: A Pilot Survey.
  7. Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review.
  8. The green, gold grass of home: Introducing open access in universities in Norway.
  9. What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature.
  10. Retracted Publications in Medical Imaging Literature: an Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.
  11. Rethinking the retraction process.
  12. Readership awareness series - Paper 1: Ghost authorship.
  13. Facilitating open science without sacrificing IP rights: A novel tool for improving replicability of published research: A novel tool for improving replicability of published research.
  14. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher.
  15. Strengthening Review and Publication of Participatory Mental Health Research to Promote Empowerment and Prevent Co-optation.
  1. Science. 2022 Aug 19. 377(6608): 805-809
    Anywhere but here.
    Jon Cohen.
      China now insists the pandemic didn't start within its borders. Its scientists are publishing a flurry of papers pointing the finger elsewhere.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade4235
  2. Eur J Intern Med. 2022 Aug 16. pii: S0953-6205(22)00292-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publication and citation inequalities faced by African researchers.
    Paul Sebo.
      
    Keywords:  Africa; Citation; Discrimination; Ethnic bias; Inequality; Publication; Researcher
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2022.08.014
  3. Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Aug;6(8): 1032-1033
    Why scientific conferences must mitigate structural barriers.
    Omid V Ebrahimi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01417-4
  4. Nature. 2022 Aug 15.
    Nature's Take: what's next for the preprint revolution.
    Nick Petrić Howe, Elizabeth Gibney, Ehsan Masood, Zoltan Fehervari.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01985-5
  5. Trials. 2022 Aug 17. 23(1): 674
    Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials.
    David Campbell, Cassandra McDonald, Suzie Cro, Vipul Jairath, Brennan C Kahan.
      BACKGROUND: Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request.METHODS: We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times.
    RESULTS: Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%.
    CONCLUSIONS: Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Protocols; Randomised trials; Statistical analysis plans; Unpublished protocols
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06641-x
  6. World Neurosurg. 2022 Aug 13. pii: S1878-8750(22)01132-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Mechanisms of Peer Review and their Potential Impact on Neurosurgeons: A Pilot Survey.
    Counsel of State Neurosurgical Societies (CSNS)
      INTRODUCTION: Physician peer review is a universal practice among United States hospitals. While there are many commonalities in peer review procedures, many of them established by law, there is also much institutional variation which should be well understood by practicing neurosurgeons.METHODS: We conducted a 13-question pilot survey of a sample of five hospital systems with whom members of the CSNS-Medicolegal committee are affiliated. Survey questions were constructed to qualitatively assess three features of Hospital Peer Review: (1) committee composition and process, (2) committee outcomes, and (3) legal protections and ramifications RESULTS: The most common paradigm for physician peer review committee (PPRC) was an interdisciplinary group with representatives from most major medical and surgical subspecialties. Referrals for peer review inquiry could be made by any hospital employee and were largely anonymous. Most institutions included a pre-committee screening process conducted by the PPRC leadership. The most common outcomes of an inquiry were resolution with no further action or ongoing focused professional practice evaluation (FFPE). Only in rare circumstances were hospital privileges reported to be revoked or terminated. Members of the PPRC were consistently protected from retaliatory litigation related to peer review participation. The majority of hospitals had a multi-layered decision process and availability of appeal to minimize the potential for punitive investigations.
    DISCUSSION: According to a recent study, only 62% of hospitals consider their peer review process to be highly or significantly standardized. This pilot survey provides commentary of potential areas of commonality and variation among hospital peer review practices.
    Keywords:  Medicolegal; Peer Review; Socioeconomic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.08.032
  7. Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 2022 Sep 20. 76(3): 335-336
    Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review.
    Anna Marie Roos.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2022.0022
  8. PLoS One. 2022 ;17(8): e0273091
    The green, gold grass of home: Introducing open access in universities in Norway.
    Lars Wenaas, Magnus Gulbrandsen.
      In this paper, we investigate how open access is reflected and implemented in all Norwegian universities and how they responded to national policy developments for open access in the period 2009-2021. We analyse how the universities adapted arguments for the three core missions of the universities-research, education, and societal impact-when they reacted to increasing pressures to facilitate open access. Our analysis is based on 182 institutional strategy documents, open access policies and annual reports. When considering the profile of the institutional policies and the explicit referrals to national policies, we find there is a great deal of homogeneity between Norwegian universities, and they are mostly aligned with national policy. Open access is connected to the third mission in all university strategies, but often in a very general manner and without documenting benefits for non-academic users. We find limited emphasis on open access as advantageous for education. All universities show commitment to open access, and several can be described as proactive as they tie it to different types of local incentives. Development over time suggests more mature and institutionalised polices that do not challenge what we may call the academic heartland and its core value of academic freedom, including where and how to publish. We propose a framework for analysing similar institutionalisation processes with three main dimensions: mimesis, adaptation/integration with existing practices, and maturation/commitment.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273091
  9. Indian J Urol. 2022 Jul-Sep;38(3):38(3): 184-190
    What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature.
    Rahul Jena, Aditya Prakash Sharma, Kumar Madhavan, Ashwin Narasimha Sridhar, Kalpesh Parmar, Nikita Shrivastava.
      Introduction: The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi.Methods: The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled.
    Results: A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals.
    Conclusion: Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_403_21
  10. Acad Radiol. 2022 Aug 14. pii: S1076-6332(22)00371-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Retracted Publications in Medical Imaging Literature: an Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.
    Robert M Kwee, Thomas C Kwee.
      RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: It is currently unknown how many publications in the medical imaging literature are retracted and for which reasons. The purpose of this study was to perform an updated analysis on retracted medical imaging publications using the Retraction Watch Database.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Retraction Watch Database was searched for all retracted publications in the subject category "Radiology/Imaging" (no beginning date limit, search update until April 27, 2022). Reasons for retraction were extracted using standardized coding taxonomy. The number of citations per retracted publication was determined. Spearman's rho was used for statistical analysis.
    RESULTS: 192 retractions, originally published between 1984 and 2021, were included. Most retractions originated from China (31.3%), the United States (12.5%), Japan (7.3%), and South Korea (6.3%). The number of retractions increased over the years, especially since 2000 (Spearman's rho=0.764, p <0.001). Delay between original publication and retraction ranged from 0 days to 14 years and 3 months (median of 11 months). Most common reasons for retraction were duplication of article (7.1%), plagiarism of article (6.8%), concerns/issues about data (5.4%), investigation by company/institution (4.5%), and forged authorship (4.0%). Scientific misconduct was deemed present in 107 of 192 retracted articles (55.7%). Retracted articles (of which 138 were listed in Web of Science) received a median of 2 citations (range 0-148, IQR 5).
    CONCLUSION: The number of retracted medical imaging publications continues to increase over time, which could indicate that more compromised research has either been published or discovered. Scientific misconduct was the main cause for retraction.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Fraud; Medical Imaging; Plagiarism; Radiology; Retracted Publication; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.06.025
  11. Science. 2022 Aug 19. 377(6608): 793
    Rethinking the retraction process.
    H Holden Thorp.
      High-profile examples of scientific fraud continue to plague research. Recently, Science published two news stories on alleged image manipulation in Alzheimer's research and unreliable data in an ecology study, sadly showing that the problem persists. Each case involved back and forth among the journal, authors, and institutions to correct the scientific record. Journalists and advocates for research integrity (including courageous whistleblowers) are understandably frustrated about how long it takes to retract papers or at least to post editorial expressions of concern. It's time to devise a more efficient solution.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade3742
  12. Ocul Surf. 2022 Aug 10. pii: S1542-0124(22)00066-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Readership awareness series - Paper 1: Ghost authorship.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2022.07.011
  13. EMBO Rep. 2022 Aug 16. e55841
    Facilitating open science without sacrificing IP rights: A novel tool for improving replicability of published research: A novel tool for improving replicability of published research.
    Or Cohen-Sasson, Ofer Tur-Sinai.
      Conditional Access Agreements could improve replicability of research and enhance Open Science without jeopardizing intellectual property rights.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202255841
  14. Trials. 2022 Aug 17. 23(1): 671
    Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher.
    Daeria O Lawson, Michael K Wang, Kevin Kim, Rachel Eikelboom, Myanca Rodrigues, Daniela Trapsa, Lehana Thabane, David Moher.
      BACKGROUND: The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues.MAIN TEXT: This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.
    CONCLUSION: Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; Collaborative research; Education; Open science; Publishing; Reporting guidelines; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06624-y
  15. Psychiatr Serv. 2022 Aug 19. appips20220085
    Strengthening Review and Publication of Participatory Mental Health Research to Promote Empowerment and Prevent Co-optation.
    Michelle Colder Carras, Karen Machin, Marie Brown, Terry-Lee Marttinen, Charlotte Maxwell, Barbara Frampton, Matthew Jackman, Nev Jones.
      As reviewers, editors, and researchers with lived experience of mental health challenges, addiction, and/or psychosocial distress/disability, the authors have struggled to find an adequate way to address inappropriate or misleading use of the term "participatory methods" to describe research that involves people with lived experience in only a superficial or tokenistic manner. The authors of this article have found that, in their experience, editors or other reviewers often appear to give authors extensive leeway on claims of participatory methods that more accurately reflect tokenism or superficial involvement. The problem of co-optation is described, examples from the authors' experiences are given, the potential harms arising from co-optation are articulated, and a series of concrete actions that journal editors, reviewers, and authors can take to preserve the core intent of participatory approaches are offered. The authors conclude with a call to action: the mental health field must ensure that power imbalances that sustain epistemic injustice against people with lived experience are not worsened by poorly conducted or reported studies or by tokenistic participatory methods.
    Keywords:  Community-based participatory research; Editorial policies; Empowerment; Peer review; Research design and methodology; Research/psychiatric
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20220085
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2022‒08‒22 at 04:44:00.