bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022‒10‒09
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review.
  2. Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine.
  3. Don't dodge retraction of fraudulent papers.
  4. Search engine optimization for scientific publications: How one can find your needle in the haystack.
  5. The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics.
  6. The clear reporting of study limitations in the reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials is not routinely undertaken: A systematic search and review.
  7. Insights Into the Publishing Process.
  8. Does your paper help nursing science?
  9. Open Access Budget Impact Assessment Tools: A Welcome Step in Supporting Evidence-Informed Policy Decisions.
  10. Meeting presentations and their publication rates.
  11. COVID-19 Health Policies: The Need for Transparent Data Sharing Between Scientists, Governments, and Policymakers.
  12. Code and Data Sharing Practices in the Radiology Artificial Intelligence Literature: A Meta-Research Study.
  13. Taking the pain out of data sharing.
  14. No turning back on global open access.
  15. Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future.
  16. A Discussion Between Past and Present Editor-in-Chief of the International Neurourology Journal: Three Decades of History.
  17. The Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine goes full open access in 2023.
  18. The journal "La Tunisie Médicale": Soon in the Q2 Quartile, on the SCImago platform.
  19. RSNA Board Announcement to Sunset Print Publications.
  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Oct 11. 119(41): e2205779119
    Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review.
    Jürgen Huber, Sabiou Inoua, Rudolf Kerschbamer, Christian König-Kersting, Stefan Palan, Vernon L Smith.
      Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton described this bias as prominent researchers getting disproportionately great credit for their contribution, while relatively unknown researchers get disproportionately little credit [R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56-63 (1968)]. We measured the extent of this bias in the peer-review process through a preregistered field experiment. We invited more than 3,300 researchers to review a finance research paper jointly written by a prominent author (a Nobel laureate) and by a relatively unknown author (an early career research associate), varying whether reviewers saw the prominent author's name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less-well-known author's name. We found strong evidence for the status bias: More of the invited researchers accepted to review the paper when the prominent name was shown, and while only 23% recommended "reject" when the prominent researcher was the only author shown, 48% did so when the paper was anonymized, and 65% did when the little-known author was the only author shown. Our findings complement and extend earlier results on double-anonymized vs. single-anonymized review [R. Blank, Am. Econ. Rev. 81, 1041-1067 (1991); M. A. Ucci, F. D'Antonio, V. Berghella, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM 4, 100645 (2022)].
    Keywords:  double-anonymized; peer review; scientific method; status bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205779119
  2. Quant Sci Stud. 2022 Feb;2(4): 1144-1169
    Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine.
    Tzu-Kun Hsiao, Jodi Schneider.
      We present the first database-wide study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., preretraction and postretraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960-2020). Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. In these 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.
    Keywords:  citation analysis; citation context analysis; intentional postretraction citation; postretraction citation PubMed Central Open Access Subset; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155
  3. Nature. 2022 10;610(7930): 34
    Don't dodge retraction of fraudulent papers.
    Thomas E DeCoursey.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Funding; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03120-w
  4. United European Gastroenterol J. 2022 Oct 03.
    Search engine optimization for scientific publications: How one can find your needle in the haystack.
    Willem Pieter Brouwer, Marcus Hollenbach.
      
    Keywords:  SEO; article findability; guidance on SEO; improvement of citations; scientific SEO; scientific publications; search engine optimization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12311
  5. J Bus Ethics. 2022 Sep 26. 1-24
    The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics.
    Gibson Burrell, Michael R Hyman, Christopher Michaelson, Julie A Nelson, Scott Taylor, Andrew West.
      To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production. Questions of who produces knowledge about what, and how that knowledge is produced, are inherent to editing and publishing academic journals. At the Journal of Business Ethics, we understand the ethical responsibility of academic knowledge production as going far beyond conventions around the integrity of the research content and research processes. We are deeply aware that access to resources, knowledge of the rules of the game, and being able to set those rules, are systematically and unequally distributed. One could ask the question "for whom is knowledge now ethical'"? (See the Burrell commentary.) We have a responsibility to address these inequalities and open up our journal to lesser heard voices, ideas, and ways of being. Our six commentators pursue this through various aspects of the ethics and politics of academic knowledge production. Working with MacIntyre's scheme of practices and institutions, Andrew West provides commentary on the internal good of business ethics learning and education. Inviting us to step out of the cave, Christopher Michaelson urges a clear-eyed, unblinking focus on the purposes and audiences of business ethics scholarship. As developmental editor, Scott Taylor uncovers some of the politics of peer review with the aim of nurturing of unconventional research. Mike Hyman presents his idiosyncratic view of marketing ethics. In the penultimate commentary, Julie Nelson attributes difficulties in the academic positioning of the Business Ethics field to the hegemony of a masculine-centric model of the firm. And finally, Gibson Burrell provides a powerful provocation to go undercover as researcher-investigators in a parallel ethics of the research process.
    Keywords:  Feminist economics; Future of business ethics; Institutionalisation; Marketing theory; Paraethics; Peer review; Practices; Stories
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05243-6
  6. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Oct 04. pii: S0889-5406(22)00575-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    The clear reporting of study limitations in the reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials is not routinely undertaken: A systematic search and review.
    Marianna Koufatzidou, Ilias Karveleas, Jadbinder Seehra, Nikolaos Pandis.
      INTRODUCTION: To ensure accurate interpretation of the generalizability of trial findings, the clear reporting of limitations is imperative. This review aimed to assess whether study limitations are reported in full-text articles of orthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Associations between the trial characteristics and the reporting of limitations were also explored.METHODS: In this review, RCTs published between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2021 were identified from 5 orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor. Trial characteristics were extracted from the individual reports. To ascertain if limitations were reported in reports of RCTs, a criterion was developed from previously published literature. Descriptive statistics and associations between the reporting of limitations and trial characteristics were explored.
    RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-six trials were analyzed. In relation to the criterion, the clear reporting of trial limitations was deficient across several areas. Most RCTs were published in 2021 (12.7%), had authors based in Asia and other regions (42.2%), did not have a statistician involved (85.8%), and were materials and devices type trials (48.7%). An association was detected between the year of publication, impact factor, journal and journal submission instructions, and reporting of study limitations. More recent trials published in journals with higher impact factors were more likely to report limitations in the main manuscript. Journals with suggested or mandatory instructions were more likely to report limitations in the trials they publish than journals with no reference to reporting limitations in the manuscript in the journal submission instructions.
    CONCLUSIONS: Authors of trials should not view the reporting of limitations as a weakness of their trial but rather as an opportunity to provide further information to allow clinicians to fully interpret the generalizability of the results. Scientific journals should stipulate and facilitate the reporting of study limitations within manuscripts.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.08.016
  7. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2022 Sep;13(7): 653-654
    Insights Into the Publishing Process.
    Beth Faiman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2022.13.7.1
  8. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2022 Oct 01.
    Does your paper help nursing science?
    Susan Gennaro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12825
  9. Can J Cardiol. 2022 Oct;pii: S0828-282X(22)00410-X. [Epub ahead of print]38(10): 1485-1487
    Open Access Budget Impact Assessment Tools: A Welcome Step in Supporting Evidence-Informed Policy Decisions.
    Derek Chew, Fiona Clement.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2022.07.003
  10. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2022 Nov 01. 39(11): 897-900
    Meeting presentations and their publication rates.
    Divakara Gouda, Maithri Goud, Prabhakara Gouda, Akash Singh, Basavana Goudra.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001690
  11. Oman Med J. 2022 Sep;37(5): e418
    COVID-19 Health Policies: The Need for Transparent Data Sharing Between Scientists, Governments, and Policymakers.
    Francesco Chirico, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2022.63
  12. Radiol Artif Intell. 2022 Sep;4(5): e220081
    Code and Data Sharing Practices in the Radiology Artificial Intelligence Literature: A Meta-Research Study.
    Kesavan Venkatesh, Samantha M Santomartino, Jeremias Sulam, Paul H Yi.
      Purpose: To evaluate code and data sharing practices in original artificial intelligence (AI) scientific manuscripts published in the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) journals suite from 2017 through 2021.Materials and Methods: A retrospective meta-research study was conducted of articles published in the RSNA journals suite from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. A total of 218 articles were included and evaluated for code sharing practices, reproducibility of shared code, and data sharing practices. Categorical comparisons were conducted using Fisher exact tests with respect to year and journal of publication, author affiliation(s), and type of algorithm used.
    Results: Of the 218 included articles, 73 (34%) shared code, with 24 (33% of code sharing articles and 11% of all articles) sharing reproducible code. Radiology and Radiology: Artificial Intelligence published the most code sharing articles (48 [66%] and 21 [29%], respectively). Twenty-nine articles (13%) shared data, and 12 of these articles (41% of data sharing articles) shared complete experimental data by using only public domain datasets. Four of the 218 articles (2%) shared both code and complete experimental data. Code sharing rates were statistically higher in 2020 and 2021 compared with earlier years (P < .01) and were higher in Radiology and Radiology: Artificial Intelligence compared with other journals (P < .01).
    Conclusion: Original AI scientific articles in the RSNA journals suite had low rates of code and data sharing, emphasizing the need for open-source code and data to achieve transparent and reproducible science.Keywords: Meta-Analysis, AI in Education, Machine LearningSupplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2022.
    Keywords:  AI in Education; Machine Learning; Meta-Analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.220081
  13. Nature. 2022 10;610(7930): 220-221
    Taking the pain out of data sharing.
    Matthew Hutson.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Databases; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03133-5
  14. BMJ. 2022 Oct 05. 379 o2334
    No turning back on global open access.
    Virginia Barbour, Dimity Flanagan, Kim Tairi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2334
  15. Bioscience. 2022 Oct;72(10): 988-998
    Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future.
    Emma Steigerwald, Valeria Ramírez-Castañeda, Débora Y C Brandt, András Báldi, Julie Teresa Shapiro, Lynne Bowker, Rebecca D Tarvin.
      Having a central scientific language remains crucial for advancing and globally sharing science. Nevertheless, maintaining one dominant language also creates barriers to accessing scientific careers and knowledge. From an interdisciplinary perspective, we describe how, when, and why to make scientific literature more readily available in multiple languages through the practice of translation. We broadly review the advantages and limitations of neural machine translation systems and propose that translation can serve as both a short- and a long-term solution for making science more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful beyond the academy. We outline actions that individuals and institutions can take to support multilingual science and scientists, including structural changes that encourage and value translating scientific literature. In the long term, improvements to machine translation technologies and collective efforts to change academic norms can transform a monolingual scientific hub into a multilingual scientific network. Translations are available in the supplemental material.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; multilingualism; neural networks; plain language; scientific communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac062
  16. Int Neurourol J. 2022 Sep;26(3): 173-178
    A Discussion Between Past and Present Editor-in-Chief of the International Neurourology Journal: Three Decades of History.
    Jong Mok Park, Khae Hawn Kim.
      The International Neurourology Journal (Int Neurourol J, INJ) is a quarterly international journal that publishes high-quality research papers that provide the most significant and promising achievements in the fields of clinical neurourology and fundamental science. Specifically, fundamental science includes the most influential research papers from all fields of science and technology, revolutionizing what physicians and researchers practicing the art of neurourology worldwide know. Thus, we welcome valuable basic research articles to introduce cutting-edge translational research of fundamental sciences to clinical neurourology. In the editorials, urologists will present their perspectives on these articles. The original mission statement of the INJ was published on October 12, 1997. INJ provides authors a fast review of their work and makes a decision in an average of 3 to 4 weeks of receiving submissions. If accepted, articles are posted online in fully citable form. Supplementary issues will be published interim to quarterlies, as necessary, to fully allow berth to accept and publish relevant articles. Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE, Web of Science), Scopus, PubMed, PubMed Central, KoreaMed, KoMCI, WPRIM, WorldWideScience.org, DOI/Crossref, EBSCO, Google Scholar.
    Keywords:  Editors-in-chief; Hisotory; International Neurourology Journal; Neurourology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.2244196.098
  17. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2022 Sep 30.
    The Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine goes full open access in 2023.
    Elaine L Pico, Sara Tinsley.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-229004
  18. Tunis Med. 2022 juin;100(6):100(6): 416-422
    The journal "La Tunisie Médicale": Soon in the Q2 Quartile, on the SCImago platform.
    Ahmed Ben Abdelaziz, Helmi Ben Saad, Lilia Zakhama.
      The SCImago platform had just announced, at the beginning of 2022, the new position of the journal «La Tunisie Médicale» (ISSN: 0041-4131; IeSSN: 2724-7031) in the third quartile (Q3) of journals in the field. Medicine/General Medicine, with an SJR index (2021) of 0.29 and an Impact Score (2 years) of 0.53. As for the Scopus® platform, it reported for the journal «La Tunisie Médicale», a CiteScore 2021 of 0.8 (between 2018-2021: 514 citations and 630 documents) and a position at the 34th percentile. To improve its notoriety indices, the new editorial team of the journal "La Tunisie Médicale" will immediately: 1. Select research manuscripts with a high level of evidence; 2. Invite leaders in scientific biomedical writing to actively participate in its special thematic issues; 3. Mobilize an international team of competent, available and committed reviewers.
  19. Radiographics. 2022 Oct;42(6): 1579
    RSNA Board Announcement to Sunset Print Publications.
    RSNA Board of Directors
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.229010
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2022‒10‒17 at 19:02:16.