bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒02‒19
34 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1): 6-13
      Background: While English is only the native language of 7.3% of the world's population and less than 20% can speak the language, nearly 75% of all scientific publications are English. Aim: To describe how and why scientific contributions from the non-English-speaking world have been excluded from addiction literature, and put forward suggestions for making this literature more accessible to the non-English-speaking population. Methods: A working group of the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE) conducted an iterative review of issues related to scientific publishing from the non-English-speaking world. Findings: We discuss several issues stemming from the predominance of English in the scientific addiction literature, including historical drivers, why this matters, and proposed solutions, focusing on the increased availability of translation services. Conclusion: The addition of non-English-speaking authors, editorial team members, and journals will increase the value, impact, and transparency of research findings and increase the accountability and inclusivity of scientific publications.
    Keywords:  addiction linguistics; diversity; language; publication; scientific discourse
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221102227
  2. Scientometrics. 2023 Feb 03. 1-5
      News outlets publicize scientific research findings that have not been peer reviewed yet, and they often do it with active contribution by the authors of the unpublished manuscripts. While researchers are aware of the importance of the peer review process and what it means to discuss findings before manuscripts are accepted for publication, the general public is not. It is imperative to ensure that researchers provide reliable scientific knowledge to each other and to the public, as well as to preserve reliance on the scientific process and peer review. For these reasons, researchers should be more cautious in communicating unpublished work to the public and more accurate about the status of the presented scientific information.
    Keywords:  Peer review; Preprints; Science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04646-0
  3. Tob Control. 2023 Feb 13. pii: tc-2022-057702. [Epub ahead of print]
      Ethical publishing practices are vital to tobacco control research practice, particularly research involving Indigenous (Indigenous peoples: For the purposes of this Special Communication, we use the term Indigenous people(s) to include self-identified individuals and communities who frequently have historical continuity with precolonial/presettler societies; are strongly linked to the land on which they or their societies reside; and often maintain their own distinct language(s), belief and social-political systems, economies and sciences. The authors humbly acknowledge, respect and value that Indigenous peoples are diverse and constitute many nations, cultures and language groups. Many Indigenous peoples also exist as governments in treaty relations with settler-colonial societies, and all Indigenous peoples have inherent rights under international law. The language and terminology used should reflect the local context(s) and could include, but are not limited to, terms such as Aboriginal, Bagumani, Cherokee, First Peoples, First Nations, Inuit, Iwaidja, Kungarakan, Lakota, Māori, Mѐtis, American Indian, Navajo, Wagadagam, Wiradjuri, Yurok, etc) people. These practices can minimise, correct and address biases that tend to privilege Euro-Western perspectives. Ethical publishing practices can minimise and address harms, such as appropriation and misuse of knowledges; strengthen mechanisms of accountability to Indigenous peoples and communities; ensure that tobacco control research is beneficial and meaningful to Indigenous peoples and communities; and support Indigenous agency, sovereignty and self-determination. To ensure ethical practice in tobacco control, the research methodology and methods must incorporate tangible mechanisms to include and engage those Indigenous peoples that the research concerns, affects and impacts.Tobacco Control is currently missing an ethical research and evaluation publishing protocol to help uphold ethical practice. The supporters of this Special Communication call on Tobacco Control to adopt publication practice that explicitly upholds ethical research and evaluation practices, particularly in Indigenous contexts. We encourage researchers, editors, peer reviewers, funding bodies and those publishing in Tobacco Control to reflect on their conduct and decision-making when working, developing and undertaking research and evaluation of relevance to Indigenous peoples.Tobacco Control and other publishers, funding bodies, institutions and research teams have a fundamental role in ensuring that the right peoples are doing the right work in the right way. We call for Tobacco Control to recognise, value and support ethical principles, processes and practices that underpin high-quality, culturally safe and priority-driven research, evaluation and science that will move us to a future that is commercial tobacco and nicotine free.
    Keywords:  advocacy; human rights; priority/special populations; public opinion; public policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057702
  4. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(2): e0281058
      INTRODUCTION: As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking.METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.
    RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.
    CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281058
  5. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2023 Feb 12. e3622
      The paper one publishes today should be rewarded in some way tomorrow; are you eager to know the answer? This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3622
  6. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023 Feb 09. pii: S1198-743X(23)00053-8. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.028
  7. Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7948): 581-583
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life; Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00403-8
  8. Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7948): 389
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Ethics; Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00399-1
  9. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1): 14-21
      The critical role of peer reviewers in the publishing process is examined. Examples of typical challenges are provided, including the relative lack of rewards for this important task. Particular attention is paid to the need to consider the diversity of the peer reviewers recruited and impediments to the selection beyond Areas of Competence, often due to the small available pool. Finally, recommendations for improvement are suggested.
    Keywords:  competence areas; diversity; peer review; publication; recognition
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862
  10. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2023 Jan 26.
      ABSTRACT: Reviewers play an important role in the publishing of radiology articles. When done well, reviewers help editors identify which articles to accept and improve them through their recommendations. In this commentary, we provide a step-by-step guide to reviewing both original science and review articles.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000001399
  11. Interv Neuroradiol. 2023 Feb 15. 15910199231154704
      
    Keywords:  Big data; knowledge sharing; open access; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199231154704
  12. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023 Feb 13. 17456916221144988
      There has been a remarkable push for the use of positionality statements-also known as reflexivity statements-in scientific-journal articles and other research literatures. Grounded in reputable philosophical traditions, positionality statements are meant to address genuine concerns about the limits of knowledge production. However, there are at least three reasons why they should be avoided in scholarship. First, it is impossible to construct credible positionality statements because they are constrained by the very positionality they seek to address. Second, positionality statements are unnecessary because reducing bias-positional or otherwise-in scientific literatures does not hinge on the biographical details of individual scholars but on the integrity of the collective process of truth-seeking. Third, by asking scholars to disclose information about themselves, positionality statements undermine the very norms and practices that safeguard the impartiality of research. Instead of asking individual scholars to issue subjective declarations about their positionalities, scholarly communities should focus on improving the rules of intersubjective competition at the heart of scientific progress. In our view, the most productive path to increasing representation and reducing positional bias in research is to protect the freedom of scholarly inputs while insisting on methodological transparency and rigor.
    Keywords:  bias; culture/diversity; philosophy; positionality statements; reflexivity; research integrity; scientific methodology; sociology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221144988
  13. Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7948): 413
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00381-x
  14. Account Res. 2023 Feb 14.
      This letter to the editor argues that if academic journals are willing to accept papers that include NLP-generated content under certain conditions, editorial policies should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in the paper. Excessive use of NLP-generated content should be considered as academic misconduct.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2180359
  15. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2023 Mar 01. 24(3): 221-222
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000000615
  16. Mol Oncol. 2023 Feb 13.
      A central facet of scientific endeavour is that we must share our discoveries. Even in the 'Ivory Tower' science of previous centuries where scientists would often work alone, they would still disseminate their findings by attending events at learned societies and by publishing their work in scientific journals; otherwise, one could argue, if the discovery was not recorded, how do we know it happened? To this day, things are much the same, but also very different. We still need to meet and discuss our science at conferences and other events, so that we can share our ideas and early data to facilitate the progress of discovery. This also enables us to communicate with those whom we do not on a daily basis, e.g. through events that bring together basic scientists with those who undertake more translational research or are involved in clinical trials. In addition, we still need to report our findings in peer-reviewed journals. The pathways to share data and information are though more varied with people choosing to share their findings via social media platforms, webinars and other forms of digital media. The digital era has also changed the way we can ask scientific questions, with the ability to generate and analyse very large sets of data that have enormous power to make discoveries that were previously not possible. While the conclusions from these new large data studies can be easily communicated, the ability to manage and share the data, and more so, the metadata behind these studies are currently a burgeoning problem for many areas of research, including cancer research. This is not only a technical problem in handling the huge amounts of data involved, but in some cases also a legal problem when factors such as General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR, https://gdpr.eu/) need to be considered.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.13385
  17. Account Res. 2023 Feb 13.
      Curzer (Curzer, H. J. 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2178907
  18. JMIR Dermatol. 2022 Jul-Sep;5(3):pii: e37398. [Epub ahead of print]5(3):
      
    Keywords:  consent; data sharing; deidentification; dermatology; images; internet; journal; patient rights; permission; photo; privacy; publication; publish; readability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/37398
  19. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry. 2023 Feb 14. pii: S2667-2960(23)00029-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      Recognizing that very few potential reviewers and authors receive formal training on peer review, we provide guidance on peer reviewing manuscripts and on being responsive to reviewer comments. Peer review provides benefits to all parties involved. Serving as a peer reviewer gives perspective on the editorial process, fosters relationships with journal editors, gives insights on novel research, and provides a means of demonstrating topical expertise. When responding to peer reviewers, authors have the opportunity to strengthen the manuscript, sharpen the message, and address areas of potential misunderstanding. First, we provide guidance on how to peer review a manuscript. Reviewers should consider the importance of the manuscript, its rigor, and clarity of presentation. Reviewer comments should be as specific as possible. They should also be constructive and respectful in tone. Reviews typically include a list of major comments focused on methodology and interpretation and may also include a list of minor comments that pinpoint specific areas of clarification. Opinions expressed as comments to the editor are confidential. Second, we provide guidance on being responsive to reviewer comments. Authors are encouraged to approach reviewer comments as a collaboration and to view this exercise as an opportunity to strengthen their work. Response comments should be presented respectfully and systematically. The author's goal is to signal that they have engaged directly and thoughtfully with each comment. In general, when an author has questions regarding reviewer comments or how to respond, they are invited to contact the editor to review.
    Keywords:  Collaboration; Peer review; Scholarly writing; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaclp.2023.01.011
  20. Medicina (B Aires). 2023 ;83(1): 108-111
      The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.
    Keywords:  peer review; predatory journals; preprints
  21. Cephalalgia. 2023 03;43(3): 3331024221148128
      The journal Cephalalgia was founded in 1980 and was first published in 1981. The foundation was mainly laid by Ottar Sjaastad who also served as the first Editor-in-Chief. In the early years, Cephalalgia was published in Scandinavia and was owned by the Norwegian Migraine Society. It became the official journal of the International Headache Society in 1984 and in 1993 ownership of Cephalalgia was transferred to International Headache Society. The publisher changed in 2000 and then again in 2009. The success of Cephalalgia can be seen by the almost continuous rising of its impact factor and by the increasing number of issues including supplements and special issues. In the future, Cephalagia will become more digital and open access.
    Keywords:  Ephalalgia; impact factor; journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221148128
  22. Can J Ophthalmol. 2023 Feb;pii: S0008-4182(22)00398-2. [Epub ahead of print]58(1): 1
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.12.012
  23. BMJ Ment Health. 2023 Feb;pii: e300664. [Epub ahead of print]26(1):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300664