bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒05‒14
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity.
  2. Using Data to Facilitate Peer Reviewer Engagement - A JCF Update.
  3. The Preprint Club: A blueprint for community-based peer review: A blueprint for community-based peer review.
  4. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: Statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals.
  5. Saving time and money in biomedical publishing: the case for free-format submissions with minimal requirements.
  6. Immediate Open Access: The Good, the Bad, and the Impact on Academic Society Publishing.
  7. Editorial: Data science and artificial intelligence for (better) science.
  8. The impact of AI and ChatGPT on research reporting.
  9. ChatGPT for Future Medical and Dental Research.
  10. Artificial Intelligence for Oncology Nursing Authors: Potential Utility and Concerns About Large Language Model Chatbots.
  11. The rise of AI co-authors: navigating the future of scientific writing with ChatGPT.
  12. ChatGPT in academic publishing: An ally or an adversary?
  13. Should Artificial Intelligence-based language models be allowed in developing scientific manuscripts? A debate between ChatGPT and the editors of Liver International.
  14. The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.
  15. Author and Reviewers' Needless Conflict.
  16. Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.
  17. How can you trust what you read?
  18. Pervasiveness of Open Journal Invitations Across Radiology Specialties.
  19. Post or Perish? Social Media Strategies for Disseminating Orthopedic Research.
  20. Challenges and other linked features in promoting open access to bioinformation literature over about 2 decades.
  21. New tools show promise for tackling paper mills.
  22. Author Correction: An open automation system for predatory journal detection.
  1. BJOG. 2023 Apr 16.
    International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity.
    Cairo Consensus Group on Research Integrity
      OBJECTIVE: To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.METHODS: The consensus was developed via: multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn).
    RESULTS: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13).
    CONCLUSION: Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.
    Keywords:  randomised controlled trials, research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17451
  2. J Card Fail. 2023 May;pii: S1071-9164(23)00144-6. [Epub ahead of print]29(5): 717-718
    Using Data to Facilitate Peer Reviewer Engagement - A JCF Update.
    Anuradha Lala, Meredith Hurt, Alayna Humphrey, Robert J Mentz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.04.004
  3. EMBO Rep. 2023 May 10. e57258
    The Preprint Club: A blueprint for community-based peer review: A blueprint for community-based peer review.
    Felix Clemens Richter, Ester Gea-Mallorquí, Arthur Mortha, Nicolas Ruffin, Nicolas Vabret.
      Cross-institutional journal clubs focused on preprints are a new approach to community-based peer review and allow ERCs to gain experience.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202357258
  4. Acta Orthop. 2023 May 10. 94 243-249
    Guidelines for a structured manuscript: Statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals.
    Robin Christensen, Jonas Ranstam, Søren Overgaard, Philippe Wagner.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11656
  5. BMC Med. 2023 May 10. 21(1): 172
    Saving time and money in biomedical publishing: the case for free-format submissions with minimal requirements.
    Amy Clotworthy, Megan Davies, Timothy J Cadman, Jessica Bengtsson, Thea O Andersen, Manik Kadawathagedara, Johan L Vinther, Tri-Long Nguyen, Tibor V Varga.
      BACKGROUND: Manuscript preparation and the (re)submission of articles can create a significant workload in academic jobs. In this exploratory analysis, we estimate the time and costs needed to meet the diverse formatting requirements for manuscript submissions in biomedical publishing.METHODS: We reviewed 302 leading biomedical journals' submission guidelines and extracted information on the components that tend to vary the most among submission guidelines (the length of the title, the running title, the abstract, and the manuscript; the structure of the abstract and the manuscript, number of items and references allowed, whether the journal has a template). We estimated annual research funding lost due to manuscript formatting by calculating hourly academic salaries, the time lost to reformatting articles, and quantifying the total number of resubmissions per year. We interviewed several researchers and senior journal editors and editors-in-chief to contextualize our findings and develop guidelines that could help both biomedical journals and researchers work more efficiently.
    RESULTS: Among the analyzed journals, we found a huge diversity in submission requirements. By calculating average researcher salaries in the European Union and the USA, and the time spent on reformatting articles, we estimated that ~ 230 million USD were lost in 2021 alone due to reformatting articles. Should the current practice remain unchanged within this decade, we estimate ~ 2.5 billion USD could be lost between 2022 and 2030-solely due to reformatting articles after a first editorial desk rejection. In our interviews, we found alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process to be as straightforward and simple as possible, and editors want to easily identify strong, suitable articles and not waste researchers' time.
    CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from our quantitative analysis and contextualized by the qualitative interviews, we conclude that free-format submission guidelines would benefit both researchers and editors. However, a minimum set of requirements is necessary to avoid manuscript submissions that lack structure. We developed our guidelines to improve the status quo, and we urge the publishers and the editorial-advisory boards of biomedical journals to adopt them. This may also require support from publishers and major international organizations that govern the work of editors.
    Keywords:  Formatting; Journal article; Policy; Publishing; Submission guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02882-y
  6. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 May 11.
    Immediate Open Access: The Good, the Bad, and the Impact on Academic Society Publishing.
    Amr H Sawalha, Daniel H Solomon, Kelli D Allen, Patricia Katz, Ed Yelin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42522
  7. Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 ;8 1177903
    Editorial: Data science and artificial intelligence for (better) science.
    Jean-Claude Burgelman, Kuansan Wang.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; data science; knowledge production; open data; research life cycle
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1177903
  8. N Z Med J. 2023 May 12. 136(1575): 60-64
    The impact of AI and ChatGPT on research reporting.
    Zubair M Mojadeddi, Jacob Rosenberg.
      ChatGPT and the newest GPT-4 are AI language models developed by OpenAI that have gained attention for their potential applications in biomedical research reporting. The models can assist researchers in various stages of writing scientific articles, including literature search, outlining, writing different sections, formatting, and translation. The use of ChatGPT or GPT-4 in research reporting has the potential to speed up the writing process, but its limitations, such as incorrect answers and biases, should also be considered. There is ongoing debate over the issue of AI authorship in scientific papers, with some publishers allowing it to be listed as a contributor in the acknowledgements section, while others do not allow it to be listed as an author. The use of ChatGPT or GPT-4 in research reporting is a recent development, and further studies and discussions are needed to determine their potential and limitations in this field.
  9. Cureus. 2023 Apr;15(4): e37285
    ChatGPT for Future Medical and Dental Research.
    Bader Fatani.
      ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI and it first became available to the public in November 2022. ChatGPT can assist in finding academic papers on the web and summarizing them. This chatbot has the potential to be applied in scientific writing, it has the ability to generate automated drafts, summarize articles, and translate content from several languages. This in turn can make academic writing faster and less challenging. However, due to ethical considerations, its use in scientific writing should be regulated and carefully monitored. Few papers have discussed the use of ChatGPT in scientific research writing. This review aims to discuss all the relevant published papers that discuss the use of ChatGPT in medical and dental research.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; chatgpt; dentistry; medicine; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.37285
  10. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2023 Apr 21. 50(3): 276-277
    Artificial Intelligence for Oncology Nursing Authors: Potential Utility and Concerns About Large Language Model Chatbots.
    Debra Lyon.
      Artificial intelligence is a revolution in the computing and data scientist era that has led to excitement and controversy in many fields, including research and publishing. As we move further into the artificial intelligence.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; chatbots; large language model; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/23.ONF.276-277
  11. J Neurosurg. 2023 May 05. 1-2
    The rise of AI co-authors: navigating the future of scientific writing with ChatGPT.
    Ali A Alattar, Michael M McDowell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.3.JNS23254
  12. Scott Med J. 2023 May 07. 369330231174231
    ChatGPT in academic publishing: An ally or an adversary?
    Sisith Ariyaratne, Rajesh Botchu, Karthikeyan P Iyengar.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Chatbots; algorithms; artificial intelligence and writing; machine learning; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00369330231174231
  13. Liver Int. 2023 May;43(5): 956-957
    Should Artificial Intelligence-based language models be allowed in developing scientific manuscripts? A debate between ChatGPT and the editors of Liver International.
    Alessio Aghemo, Alejandro Forner, Luca Valenti.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.15580
  14. Am J Cancer Res. 2023 ;13(4): 1148-1154
    The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.
    Jingshan Huang, Ming Tan.
      Artificial intelligence tools represent an exciting opportunity for scientists to streamline their research and write impactful articles. Using artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT can greatly improve writing review articles for scientists, by enhancing efficiency and quality. ChatGPT speeds up writing, develops outlines, adds details, and helps improve writing style. However, ChatGPT's limitations must be kept in mind, and generated text must be reviewed and edited to avoid plagiarism and fabrication. Despite these limitations, ChatGPT is a powerful tool that allows scientists to focus on analyzing and interpreting literature reviews. Embracing these tools can help scientists produce meaningful research in a more efficient and effective manner, however caution must be taken and unchecked use of ChatGPT in writing should be avoided.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; review article; scientific writing
  15. Indian J Plast Surg. 2023 Apr;56(2): 97-98
    Author and Reviewers' Needless Conflict.
    Dinesh Kadam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768653
  16. Eur Heart J. 2023 May 11. pii: ehad279. [Epub ahead of print]
    Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.
    Faiez Zannad, Filippo Crea, John Keaney, Stuart Spencer, Joseph A Hill, Marc A Pfeffer, Stuart Pocock, Emma Raderschadt, Joseph S Ross, Chana A Sacks, Harriette G C Van Spall, Ron Winslow, Mariell Jessup.
      Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Plain-language summary; Preprint services; Press releases; Secondary analyses
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad279
  17. Chem Sci. 2023 May 03. 14(17): 4447-4448
    How can you trust what you read?
    May C Copsey, Andrew I Cooper.
      Chemical Science is introducing the option of transparent peer-review for authors. Editor-in-Chief Andy Cooper and Executive Editor May Copsey take a look at the reasons why, and how this will work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1039/d3sc90068a
  18. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2023 Apr 16. pii: S0363-0188(23)00054-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Pervasiveness of Open Journal Invitations Across Radiology Specialties.
    Golnoosh Ansari, Majid Khan, Susan P Weinstein, Emily F Conant, Mohammad Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari, David M Yousem.
      This study examines the patterns of faculty solicitations by open-access (OA) publishers in radiology. The purpose of the research is to determine the factors that predict the likelihood of receiving such solicitations. We recruited 6 faculty members from 7 subspecialties in radiology to collect emails from OA journals for 2 weeks. We assessed the number of publications by each faculty member in 2022 and 2023, the previous 5 years, and entire career in PubMed. For each email, the solicitation was categorized for article submission, article review, and editorial board membership. An invitation to submit a manuscript was the most common type of solicitation received, followed by editorial boards and reviewer invites. Faculty with more than 10 indexed articles in PubMed since January 2022 were significantly more likely to receive article solicitations than those with 10 or fewer publications. Additionally, scholars with more than 40 articles since 2018 were significantly more likely to receive more than 10 article solicitations. Full professors were significantly more likely to receive solicitations to serve on editorial boards. A multivariate linear regression model predicted that publications since 2022 had the highest predictive value for the number of article solicitations and total solicitations. This study provides insight into the patterns of mass communication and various solicitations by OA publishers in radiology. The study highlights the importance of publication productivity as a predictor of article and total email solicitations and of professorial rank for editorial board invitations.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.04.002
  19. J Orthop Res. 2023 May 10.
    Post or Perish? Social Media Strategies for Disseminating Orthopedic Research.
    Evan G Buettmann, Carolyn Chlebek, Carly A Lockard, Sade W Clayton, Karl J Lewis, Kelsey H Collins.
      Social media usage, particularly Twitter, among scientists in academia has increased in recent years. However, Twitter's use in scholarly post-publication dissemination of orthopaedic research and musculoskeletal advocacy remains low. To enhance usage of Twitter among musculoskeletal researchers, this article reviews data supporting the professional benefits of using the platform to disseminate scholarly works. Next, we provide a linear workflow for Tweet curation, discuss the importance of data-driven decision making behind tweet curation and posting, and propose new guidelines for professional Twitter usage. Since this workflow may not eliminate all the identified barriers and new institutionalized shifts in policies regarding curation and consumption of social media on Twitter, we also briefly introduce and explore using other social media platforms. We hope this information will be persuasive and compelling to those in the orthopedic research field and be broadly applicable to others in related scientific fields who wish to disseminate findings and engage a public audience on social media. In addition, we encourage the Orthopedic Research Society (ORS) and Journal of Orthopedic Research (JOR) communities to take advantage of the many tools curated by the Wiley editorial office and the ORS social media committee to increase dissemination of their scholarly works online. Twitter and social media can assist in accomplishing our mission of creating a world without musculoskeletal limitations via the timely dissemination of orthopedic information. However, this can only be accomplished if the orthopedic research community has a unified and strong online presence actively engaged in orthopaedic research findings and news. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  Altmetrics; Citations; Orthopedic Research Society; Publication Promotion; Social Media; Twitter
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25588
  20. Bioinformation. 2022 ;18(6): 525-530
    Challenges and other linked features in promoting open access to bioinformation literature over about 2 decades.
    Senkuttavan Pavithra, Pandjassarame Kangueane.
      Open access to known literature is critical for creating a harmonious society across continents on planet earth. However, this objective is not simple. Therefore, it is of interest to document the challenges and linked features in promoting open access to bioinformation literature over about 2 decades.
    Keywords:  bioinformation; challenges; decades; gold; literature; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6026/97320630018525
  21. Science. 2023 May 12. 380(6645): 568-569
    New tools show promise for tackling paper mills.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Fake papers-a symptom of academia's "publish or perish" pressure-are alarmingly common, new findings suggest.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi6513
  22. Sci Rep. 2023 May 08. 13(1): 7458
    Author Correction: An open automation system for predatory journal detection.
    Li-Xian Chen, Shih-Wen Su, Chia-Hung Liao, Kai-Sin Wong, Shyan-Ming Yuan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34493-1
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒05‒15 at 13:46:21.