bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒05‒07
37 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies.
  2. Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published.
  3. Saudi universities entice top scientists to switch affiliations - sometimes with cash.
  4. Search Methods for Systematic Reviews and Bibliographic Articles Can Improve: Responsibilities of Authorship Are Vast.
  5. Are open access article processing charges affordable for otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries?
  6. Editors of neurology imaging journal resign to start new publication in protest at author fees.
  7. My paper has been rejected without review. What do I do now?
  8. Scientific Journals Should Encourage, Not Hinder, Debates About Their Published Papers.
  9. Changing word meanings in biomedical literature reveal pandemics and new technologies.
  10. Promoting Ethical Integrity in Authorship Attribution: Who Can Help More?
  11. [Translated article] Publish at any Price?
  12. Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review.
  13. Holistic models as an integrative infrastructure for scientific communication.
  14. Strengthen scientific review of research protocols.
  15. Can an Artificial Intelligence (AI) be an Author on a Medical Paper?
  16. Can We Write a Research Paper Using Artificial Intelligence?
  17. Artificial intelligence-The next frontier of scientific publications?
  18. Generative artificial intelligence: Can ChatGPT write a quality abstract?
  19. No artificial intelligence authors, for now.
  20. Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scholarly Publishing: Guidance for Academic Medicine Authors.
  21. Artificial intelligence in scientific publications.
  22. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?
  23. ChatGPT and scientific publications: friend or foe?
  24. ChatGPT-a foe or an ally?
  25. [Generative AI and authorship: trends in international journals].
  26. Iranian researchers' perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication.
  27. Sex and Gender Reporting in Rehabilitation Research: A Commentary.
  28. Why do some academics so often publish (letters) outside their field?
  29. Effective Use of Hedging in Scientific Manuscripts: Advice to Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers.
  30. Some unconventional fate of the letter to the editor in response to a published article and appraisal to the journal editors.
  31. Inattention in health professions education scholarship.
  32. CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII.
  33. NEgatiVE results in Radiomics research (NEVER): A meta-research study of publication bias in leading radiology journals.
  34. Transparency in infectious disease research: meta-research survey of specialty journals.
  35. Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars' Tweet content.
  36. Publishing a research article in a major radiology journal: time investment from conception to proofreading after acceptance.
  37. The future of scholarly publishing.
  1. BMC Res Notes. 2023 May 03. 16(1): 50
    Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies.
    Renée O'Leary, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Robin Vernooij, Riccardo Polosa.
      OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research note is to share a technique for the identification of spin bias that we developed as part of a living systematic review on the cardiovascular testing of e-cigarette substitution for cigarette smoking. While some researchers have remarked on the subjective nature of ascertaining spin bias, our technique objectively documents forms of spin bias arising from the misrepresentation of nonsignificant findings and from the omission of data.RESULTS: We offer a two-step process for the identification of spin bias consisting of tracking data and findings and recording of data discrepancies by describing how the spin bias was produced in the text. In this research note, we give an example of the documentation of spin bias from our systematic review. Our experience was that nonsignificant results were presented as causal or even as significant in the Discussion of studies. Spin bias distorts scientific research and misleads readers; therefore it behooves peer reviewers and journal editors to make the effort to detect and correct it.
    Keywords:  Bias assessment; Data discrepancies; Nonsignificant results; Peer review; Quality assessment tools; Spin bias; Systematic literature reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-023-06321-2
  2. Nature. 2023 May 03.
    Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01532-w
  3. Nature. 2023 May 05.
    Saudi universities entice top scientists to switch affiliations - sometimes with cash.
    Michele Catanzaro.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01523-x
  4. Arthroscopy. 2023 Jun;pii: S0749-8063(22)00841-6. [Epub ahead of print]39(6): 1367-1368
    Search Methods for Systematic Reviews and Bibliographic Articles Can Improve: Responsibilities of Authorship Are Vast.
    James H Lubowitz, Jefferson C Brand, Michael J Rossi.
      Certain types of scientific articles, including bibliographic articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, require systematic search of electronic databases. Literature must be searched using clearly specified search terms, dates, and algorithms; article inclusion and exclusion criteria; and explicitly named databases. Search methods must be described in detail to allow reproducibility. In addition, responsibilities of all authors include contributing to study conception, design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation; drafting or critically revising the work; approving the final version to be published; being accountable for the accuracy and integrity; being available to respond to queries including after publication; being able to identify which co-authors are responsible for which parts; and maintaining primary data and underpinning analysis for at least 10 years. The responsibilities of authorship are vast.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.12.016
  5. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun 01. 31(3): 202-207
    Are open access article processing charges affordable for otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries?
    Amina Seguya, Valerie Salano, Samuel Okerosi, Eric K Kim, Mark G Shrime, Gerrit Viljoen, Johannes J Fagan.
      PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Open access articles are more frequently read and cited, and hence promote access to knowledge and new advances in healthcare. Unaffordability of open access article processing charges (APCs) may create a barrier to sharing research. We set out to assess the affordability of APCs and impact on publishing for otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).RECENT FINDINGS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in LMICs globally. Seventy-nine participants from 21 LMICs participated in the study, with the majority from lower middle-income status (66%). Fifty-four percent were otolaryngology lecturers while 30% were trainees. Eighty-seven percent of participants received a gross monthly salary of less than USD 1500. Fifty-two percent of trainees did not receive a salary. Ninety-one percent and 96% of all study participants believed APCs limit publication in open access journals and influence choice of journal for publication, respectively. Eighty percent and 95% believed APCs hinder career progression and impede sharing of research that influences patient care, respectively.
    SUMMARY: APCs are unaffordable for LMIC otolaryngology researchers, hinder career progression and inhibit the dissemination of LMIC-specific research that can improve patient care. Novel models should be developed to support open access publishing in LMICs.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000892
  6. BMJ. 2023 May 02. 381 p992
    Editors of neurology imaging journal resign to start new publication in protest at author fees.
    Owen Dyer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p992
  7. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2023 May 04.
    My paper has been rejected without review. What do I do now?
    Jennifer Cleland, Patricia O'Sullivan, Ayelet Kuper.
      This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of why papers may be desk rejected (rejected without going out for formal peer review) and describe simple steps for authors to optimize their work so it gets past the desk reject stage.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10234-x
  8. EJIFCC. 2023 Apr;34(1): 81-84
    Scientific Journals Should Encourage, Not Hinder, Debates About Their Published Papers.
    Eleftherios P Diamandis.
      The revolution in electronic publishing now allows for papers to be continuously critiqued through letters to the editor, online comments, tweets and other means. However, established top-ranked journals still pose serious barriers regarding cultivation, documentation and dissemination of post publication critiques (1). To improve on this situation, Hardwicke et al. published a set of rules, one being for journals to actively encourage and highlight post publication critique to their readership. In this commentary, I present a case whereby the editors of a top ranked journal hindered the discussion/debate between authors and expert readers. Highlighting and publishing such cases will likely put pressure on journals to modify their current policies and actively encourage post publication review. Like Hardwicke et al., we believe that post publication review is a major vehicle for advancing and accelerating science, by encouraging debates, resolving disagreements and revealing flaws in already published (and in many cases seemingly high-impact) papers.
  9. BioData Min. 2023 May 05. 16(1): 16
    Changing word meanings in biomedical literature reveal pandemics and new technologies.
    David N Nicholson, Faisal Alquaddoomi, Vincent Rubinetti, Casey S Greene.
      While we often think of words as having a fixed meaning that we use to describe a changing world, words are also dynamic and changing. Scientific research can also be remarkably fast-moving, with new concepts or approaches rapidly gaining mind share. We examined scientific writing, both preprint and pre-publication peer-reviewed text, to identify terms that have changed and examine their use. One particular challenge that we faced was that the shift from closed to open access publishing meant that the size of available corpora changed by over an order of magnitude in the last two decades. We developed an approach to evaluate semantic shift by accounting for both intra- and inter-year variability using multiple integrated models. This analysis revealed thousands of change points in both corpora, including for terms such as 'cas9', 'pandemic', and 'sars'. We found that the consistent change-points between pre-publication peer-reviewed and preprinted text are largely related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also created a web app for exploration that allows users to investigate individual terms ( https://greenelab.github.io/word-lapse/ ). To our knowledge, our research is the first to examine semantic shift in biomedical preprints and pre-publication peer-reviewed text, and provides a foundation for future work to understand how terms acquire new meanings and how peer review affects this process.
    Keywords:  Linguistic shift; Novelty; Pandemic; Software
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00332-2
  10. Acta Med Port. 2023 May 05.
    Promoting Ethical Integrity in Authorship Attribution: Who Can Help More?
    Tiago Villanueva, Helena Donato, Pedro Escada.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Editorial Policies; Ethics; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.20032
  11. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2023 May-Jun;67(3):pii: S1888-4415(23)00116-9. [Epub ahead of print]67(3): T173-T174
    [Translated article] Publish at any Price?
    Carlos Torrens.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2023.04.007
  12. Can J Nurs Res. 2023 May 03. 8445621231172621
    Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review.
    Marilyn H Oermann, Julee Waldrop, Leslie H Nicoll, Gabriel M Peterson, Kerry Simmons Drabish, Heather Carter-Templeton, Jacqueline K Owens, Teresa Moorman, Bridget Webb, Jordan Wrigley.
      BACKGROUND: Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.
    METHODS: A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.
    RESULTS: The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.
    CONCLUSION: The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.
    Keywords:  Joanna Briggs criteria; PRISMA; qualitative; quantitative; scholarly literature; scoping review; unethical publishing practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621231172621
  13. J Plant Physiol. 2023 Apr 25. pii: S0176-1617(23)00078-0. [Epub ahead of print]285 153984
    Holistic models as an integrative infrastructure for scientific communication.
    Michael Knoblauch, Winfried Peters.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2023.153984
  14. Nature. 2023 May;617(7959): 35
    Strengthen scientific review of research protocols.
    John H Powers, Jie Min, David Tribble.
      
    Keywords:  Drug discovery; Medical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01480-5
  15. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2023 May 02. pii: S2213-2198(23)00475-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Can an Artificial Intelligence (AI) be an Author on a Medical Paper?
    Jay M Portnoy, John J Oppenheimer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2023.04.034
  16. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 05;pii: S0278-2391(23)00096-4. [Epub ahead of print]81(5): 524-526
    Can We Write a Research Paper Using Artificial Intelligence?
    Chandan S Narayanaswamy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2023.01.011
  17. Aust Occup Ther J. 2023 May 01.
    Artificial intelligence-The next frontier of scientific publications?
    Angus Buchanan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12877
  18. Emerg Med Australas. 2023 May 04.
    Generative artificial intelligence: Can ChatGPT write a quality abstract?
    Franz E Babl, Maximilian P Babl.
      ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot which may have a role in medicine and science. We investigated if the freely available version of ChatGPT can produce a quality conference abstract using a fictitious but accurately calculated data table as applied by a non-medically trained person. The resulting abstract was well written without obvious errors and followed the abstract instructions. One of the references was fictitious, known as 'hallucination'. ChatGPT or similar programmes, with careful review of the product by authors, may become a valuable scientific writing tool. The scientific and medical use of generative artificial intelligence, however, raises many questions.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; generative artificial intelligence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.14233
  19. Patterns (N Y). 2023 Apr 14. 4(4): 100731
    No artificial intelligence authors, for now.
    Andrew L Hufton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100731
  20. Acad Med. 2023 Apr 28.
    Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scholarly Publishing: Guidance for Academic Medicine Authors.
    Mary Beth DeVilbiss, Laura Weiss Roberts.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005261
  21. J Am Dent Assoc. 2023 May 04. pii: S0002-8177(23)00203-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Artificial intelligence in scientific publications.
    Nirmal Kurian, Deeptiman James, Vinaya Susan Varghese, Joe Mathew Cherian, Kevin George Varghese.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2023.03.015
  22. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023 Apr 20. pii: S1472-6483(23)00219-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?
    Signe Altmäe, Alberto Sola-Leyva, Andres Salumets.
      The generative pre-trained transformer, ChatGPT, is a chatbot that could serve as a powerful tool in scientific writing. ChatGPT is a so-called large language model (LLM) that is trained to mimic the statistical patterns of language in an enormous database of human-generated text combined from text in books, articles and websites across a wide range of domains. ChatGPT can assist scientists with material organization, draft creation and proofreading, making it a valuable tool in research and publishing. This paper discusses the use of this artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot in academic writing by presenting one simplified example. Specifically, it reflects our experience of using ChatGPT to draft a scientific article for Reproductive BioMedicine Online and highlights the pros, cons and concerns associated with using LLM-based AI for generating a manuscript.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Chatbot; Large language model; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009
  23. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023 Apr 19. pii: S1472-6483(23)00217-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    ChatGPT and scientific publications: friend or foe?
    Nick Macklon, Juan Velasco Garcia.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.007
  24. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 May;39(3): 217-221
    ChatGPT-a foe or an ally?
    Om Prakash Yadava.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Non-human authors; OpenAI; Plagiarism; Scientific publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-023-01507-6
  25. Nihon Yakurigaku Zasshi. 2023 ;158(3): 291
    [Generative AI and authorship: trends in international journals].
    Kazuki Ide.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1254/fpj.23009
  26. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 May 04. 23(1): 437
    Iranian researchers' perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication.
    Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Anisa Rowhani-Farid.
      BACKGROUND: Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers.METHODS: From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified.
    RESULTS: Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers' understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research.
    CONCLUSION: The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.
    Keywords:  Open Research; Open Science Practices; Open science; Openness; Openness in Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09420-9
  27. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023 Apr 29. pii: S0003-9993(23)00251-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Sex and Gender Reporting in Rehabilitation Research: A Commentary.
    Angela Colantonio.
      Although many funding agencies have mandated sex and gender considerations in grant proposals, the integration of these considerations may not be consistently integrated in the reporting phase. Increasingly more journals are however mandating requirements in the process of peer review and reporting. This commentary provides a rationale, context and resources for authors in the rehabilitation field regarding sex and gender considerations in scientific reporting to ultimately aim to improve science and equity in our research.
    Keywords:  Gender equity; Rehabilitation; Research; Sex
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.03.034
  28. Account Res. 2023 May 04. 1-2
    Why do some academics so often publish (letters) outside their field?
    Vladimír Naxera.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2209909
  29. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 May 01. 38(17): e152
    Effective Use of Hedging in Scientific Manuscripts: Advice to Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers.
    Takako Kojima, Helena A Popiel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e152
  30. J Family Med Prim Care. 2023 Mar;12(3): 596-597
    Some unconventional fate of the letter to the editor in response to a published article and appraisal to the journal editors.
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal, Sarika Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1827_22
  31. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2023 May 04.
    Inattention in health professions education scholarship.
    Rachel H Ellaway.
      In this editorial, the Editor-in-Chief considers inattention to details and the implications thereof in education scholarship and academic writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10235-w
  32. Insights Imaging. 2023 May 04. 14(1): 75
    CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII.
    Burak Kocak, Bettina Baessler, Spyridon Bakas, Renato Cuocolo, Andrey Fedorov, Lena Maier-Hein, Nathaniel Mercaldo, Henning Müller, Fanny Orlhac, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Arnaldo Stanzione, Lorenzo Ugga, Alex Zwanenburg.
      Even though radiomics can hold great potential for supporting clinical decision-making, its current use is mostly limited to academic research, without applications in routine clinical practice. The workflow of radiomics is complex due to several methodological steps and nuances, which often leads to inadequate reporting and evaluation, and poor reproducibility. Available reporting guidelines and checklists for artificial intelligence and predictive modeling include relevant good practices, but they are not tailored to radiomic research. There is a clear need for a complete radiomics checklist for study planning, manuscript writing, and evaluation during the review process to facilitate the repeatability and reproducibility of studies. We here present a documentation standard for radiomic research that can guide authors and reviewers. Our motivation is to improve the quality and reliability and, in turn, the reproducibility of radiomic research. We name the checklist CLEAR (CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research), to convey the idea of being more transparent. With its 58 items, the CLEAR checklist should be considered a standardization tool providing the minimum requirements for presenting clinical radiomics research. In addition to a dynamic online version of the checklist, a public repository has also been set up to allow the radiomics community to comment on the checklist items and adapt the checklist for future versions. Prepared and revised by an international group of experts using a modified Delphi method, we hope the CLEAR checklist will serve well as a single and complete scientific documentation tool for authors and reviewers to improve the radiomics literature.
    Keywords:  Checklist; Imaging; Radiomics; Reporting; Texture analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01415-8
  33. Eur J Radiol. 2023 Apr 11. pii: S0720-048X(23)00144-4. [Epub ahead of print]163 110830
    NEgatiVE results in Radiomics research (NEVER): A meta-research study of publication bias in leading radiology journals.
    Burak Kocak, Elif Bulut, Osman Nuri Bayrak, Ahmet Arda Okumus, Omer Altun, Zeynep Borekci Arvas, Irem Kavukoglu.
      PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-research of radiomics-related articles for the publication of negative results, with a focus on the leading clinical radiology journals due to their purportedly high editorial standards.METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed to identify original research studies on radiomics (last search date: August 16th, 2022). The search was restricted to studies published in Q1 clinical radiology journals indexed by Scopus and Web of Science. Following an a priori power analysis based on our null hypothesis, a random sampling of the published literature was conducted. Besides the six baseline study characteristics, a total of three items about publication bias were evaluated. Agreement between raters was analyzed. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Statistical synthesis of the qualitative evaluations was presented.
    RESULTS: Following a priori power analysis, we included a random sample of 149 publications in this study. Most of the publications were retrospective (95%; 142/149), based on private data (91%; 136/149), centered on a single institution (75%; 111/149), and lacked external validation (81%; 121/149). Slightly fewer than half (44%; 66/149) made no comparison to non-radiomic approaches. Overall, only one study (1%; 1/149) reported negative results for radiomics, yielding a statistically significant binomial test (p < 0.0001).
    CONCLUSION: The top clinical radiology journals almost never publish negative results, having a strong bias toward publishing positive results. Almost half of the publications did not even compare their approach with a non-radiomic method.
    Keywords:  Meta-research; Negative results; Publication bias; Radiomics; Systematic review; Texture analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110830
  34. J Infect Dis. 2023 May 03. pii: jiad130. [Epub ahead of print]
    Transparency in infectious disease research: meta-research survey of specialty journals.
    Emmanuel A Zavalis, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, John P A Ioannidis.
      BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases carry large global burdens and have implications for society at large. Therefore, reproducible, transparent research is extremely important.METHODS: We evaluated transparency indicators (code and data sharing, registration, conflict and funding disclosures) in the 5340 PubMed Central Open Access articles published in 2019 or 2021 in the 9 most-cited specialty journals in infectious disease using the text-mining R package, rtransparent.
    RESULTS: 5340 articles were evaluated (1860 published in 2019 and 3480 in 2021 (of which 1828 on COVID-19)). Text-mining identified code sharing in 98 (2%) articles, data sharing in 498 (9%), registration in 446 (8%), conflict of interest disclosures in 4209 (79%) and funding disclosures in 4866 (91%). There were substantial differences across the 9 journals: 1-9% for code sharing, 5-25% for data sharing, 1-31% for registration, 7-100% for conflicts of interest, and 65-100% for funding disclosures. Validation-corrected imputed estimates were 3%, 11%, 8%, 79% and 92%, respectively. There were no major differences between articles published in 2019 and non-COVID-19 articles in 2021. In 2021, non-COVID-19 articles had more data sharing (12%) than COVID-19 articles (4%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Data sharing, code sharing, and registration are very uncommon in infectious disease specialty journals. Increased transparency is required.
    Keywords:  Infectious Disease; Meta-Research; Meta-epidemiology; Reproducibility; Rigor; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiad130
  35. Public Underst Sci. 2023 May 02. 9636625231166552
    Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars' Tweet content.
    Lars Guenther, Claudia Wilhelm, Corinna Oschatz, Janise Brück.
      Scientists increasingly use Twitter for communication about science. The microblogging service has been heralded for its potential to foster public engagement with science; thus, measuring how engaging, that is dialogue-oriented, tweet content is, has become a relevant research object. Tweet content designed in an engaging, dialogue-oriented way is also supposed to link to user interaction (e.g. liking, retweeting). The present study analyzed content-related and functional indicators of engagement in scientists' tweet content, applying content analysis to original tweets (n = 2884) of 212 communication scholars. Findings show that communication scholars tweet mostly about scientific topics, with, however, low levels of engagement. User interaction, nevertheless, correlated with content-related and functional indicators of engagement. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for public engagement with science.
    Keywords:  Twitter; content analysis; science engagement; scientists; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231166552
  36. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023 Apr 29. pii: S1546-1440(23)00330-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing a research article in a major radiology journal: time investment from conception to proofreading after acceptance.
    Robert M Kwee, Maan T Almaghrabi, Thomas C Kwee.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2023.03.013
  37. J Food Sci. 2023 May;88(5): 1785-1786
    The future of scholarly publishing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16602
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒05‒08 at 10:56:11.