bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒07‒09
forty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Preprints become papers less often when the authors are from lower-income countries.
  2. The Economics of Scientific Publishing.
  3. The mysterious case of the disappearing pilot study: a review of publication bias in preliminary behavioral interventions presented at health behavior conferences.
  4. Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review.
  5. Blinding of Peer Review and the Impact on Geographic Diversity of Authors in the Medical Literature.
  6. The peer review process: A survey among scientists in radiology.
  7. Readership Awareness Series - Paper 5: The Peer Review Process.
  8. Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall's list by the scientific community-A bibliometric big data study.
  9. Predatory journals-a cautionary tale for veterinary authors.
  10. Keeping Medical Science Trustworthy: The Threat by Predatory Journals.
  11. "Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations.
  12. ChatGPT and scientific writing: A reflection on the ethical boundaries.
  13. Artificial intelligence is the new chief editor of Critical Care (maybe?).
  14. Risks and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence for Peer-review.
  15. Writing with ChatGPT: An Illustration of its Capacity, Limitations & Implications for Academic Writers.
  16. Response to concerns about the increasing influence of artificial intelligence in publishing.
  17. Scientists used ChatGPT to generate an entire paper from scratch - but is it any good?
  18. Could ChatGPT help you to write your next scientific paper?: concerns on research ethics related to usage of artificial intelligence tools.
  19. ChatGPT, authorship, and medical publishing.
  20. Review of Retracted Papers in the Field of Neurology.
  21. What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?
  22. Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.
  23. Retractions of dermatology articles are uncommon in the Retraction Watch database 1994-2021.
  24. Gender shapes the formation of review paper collaborations in microbiology.
  25. Gender Representation Among Editors of Major Pediatric Journals.
  26. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals.
  27. Engaging and Empowering Female Urologists in Academic Publishing and Peer Review.
  28. How to make a systematic review live up to its name: perspectives from journal editors.
  29. Writing strategies for improving the access of medical literature.
  30. Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals.
  31. Being a scientific editor at Brain Communications.
  32. [A brief history of Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases on its 70th anniversary].
  33. The value of journals.
  34. The power of YouTube videos for surgical journals.
  35. Update on the fourth version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: relevance for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.
  36. Grant-writing rituals.
  37. Computer algorithms infer gender, race and ethnicity. Here's how to avoid their pitfalls.
  38. Writing for Publication.
  39. Reflections on scholarly publishing.
  40. A reflection on journal rankings.
  1. Nature. 2023 Jul 03.
    Preprints become papers less often when the authors are from lower-income countries.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02216-1
  2. Yale J Biol Med. 2023 06;96(2): 267-273
    The Economics of Scientific Publishing.
    Azmaeen Zarif.
      The peculiar nature of scientific publishing has allowed for a high degree of market concentration and a non-collusive oligopoly. The non-substitutable characteristic of scientific journals has facilitated an environment of market concentration. Acquisition of journals on a capabilities-based approach has seen market concentration increase in favor of a small group of dominant publishers. The digital era of scientific publishing has accelerated concentration. Competition laws have failed to prevent anti-competitive practices. The need for government intervention is debated. The definition of scientific publishing as a public good is evaluated to determine the need for intervention. Policy implications are suggested to increase competitiveness in the short-run and present prestige-maintaining alternatives in the long run. A fundamental change in scientific publishing is required to enable socially efficient and equitable access for wider society's benefit.
    Keywords:  Antitrust; competition; government intervention; oligopoly; public good
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.59249/OMSP9618
  3. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023 Jul 07. 9(1): 115
    The mysterious case of the disappearing pilot study: a review of publication bias in preliminary behavioral interventions presented at health behavior conferences.
    Lauren von Klinggraeff, Kaitlyn Ramey, Christopher D Pfledderer, Sarah Burkart, Bridget Armstrong, R Glenn Weaver, Michael W Beets.
      BACKGROUND: The number of preliminary studies conducted and published has increased in recent years. However, there are likely many preliminary studies that go unpublished because preliminary studies are typically small and may not be perceived as methodologically rigorous. The extent of publication bias within preliminary studies is unknown but can prove useful to determine whether preliminary studies appearing in peer-reviewed journals are fundamentally different than those that are unpublished. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with publication in a sample of abstracts of preliminary studies of behavioral interventions presented at conferences.METHODS: Abstract supplements from two primary outlets for behavioral intervention research (Society of Behavioral Medicine and International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity) were searched to identify all abstracts reporting findings of behavioral interventions from preliminary studies. Study characteristics were extracted from the abstracts including year presented, sample size, design, and statistical significance. To determine if abstracts had a matching peer-reviewed publication, a search of authors' curriculum vitae and research databases was conducted. Iterative logistic regression models were used to estimate odds of abstract publication. Authors with unpublished preliminary studies were surveyed to identify reasons for nonpublication.
    RESULTS: Across conferences, a total of 18,961 abstracts were presented. Of these, 791 were preliminary behavioral interventions, of which 49% (388) were published in a peer-reviewed journal. For models with main effects only, preliminary studies with sample sizes greater than n = 24 were more likely to be published (range of odds ratios, 1.82 to 2.01). For models including interactions among study characteristics, no significant associations were found. Authors of unpublished preliminary studies indicated small sample sizes and being underpowered to detect effects as barriers to attempting publication.
    CONCLUSIONS: Half of preliminary studies presented at conferences go unpublished, but published preliminary studies appearing in peer-reviewed literature are not systematically different from those that remain unpublished. Without publication, it is difficult to assess the quality of information regarding the early-stage development of interventions. This inaccessibility inhibits our ability to learn from the progression of preliminary studies.
    Keywords:  Feasibility studies; Gray literature; Peer review; Pilot projects; Publication bias; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-023-01345-8
  4. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(7): e0283980
    Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review.
    Ivan Stelmakh, Charvi Rastogi, Ryan Liu, Shuchi Chawla, Federico Echenique, Nihar B Shah.
      Citations play an important role in researchers' careers as a key factor in evaluation of scientific impact. Many anecdotes advice authors to exploit this fact and cite prospective reviewers to try obtaining a more positive evaluation for their submission. In this work, we investigate if such a citation bias actually exists: Does the citation of a reviewer's own work in a submission cause them to be positively biased towards the submission? In conjunction with the review process of two flagship conferences in machine learning and algorithmic economics, we execute an observational study to test for citation bias in peer review. In our analysis, we carefully account for various confounding factors such as paper quality and reviewer expertise, and apply different modeling techniques to alleviate concerns regarding the model mismatch. Overall, our analysis involves 1,314 papers and 1,717 reviewers and detects citation bias in both venues we consider. In terms of the effect size, by citing a reviewer's work, a submission has a non-trivial chance of getting a higher score from the reviewer: an expected increase in the score is approximately 0.23 on a 5-point Likert item. For reference, a one-point increase of a score by a single reviewer improves the position of a submission by 11% on average.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283980
  5. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 ;16 1857-1868
    Blinding of Peer Review and the Impact on Geographic Diversity of Authors in the Medical Literature.
    Abrar K Thabit.
      Background: Blinding of reviewers is hypothesized to improve the peer review process by removing potential bias. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of blinding of peer review on the geographic diversity of authors in medical/clinical journals.Methods: MEDLINE-indexed medical journals were evaluated, where journals that only publish in basic sciences or administration, non-English journals, journals that publish solely solicited materials, and journals that employ open review process were excluded. Journals were divided into single-blinded or double-blinded. Diversity was calculated by dividing the number of countries from which 20 evaluated articles come and multiplying by 100 (%diversity). The second method involved calculating Simpson's diversity index (SDI).
    Results: Of 1054 journals, 766 employ single-blinded review and 288 were double-blinded. Journals had a median age of 28 years and were mostly international (n=355 single-blinded and 97 double-blinded). No difference was observed between the two groups in median %diversity (45 in both groups; P=0.199) and SDI (0.84 vs 0.82; P=0.128). The indexing of journals in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) collection of Web of Science and Scopus, and a higher CiteScore were significantly associated with higher %diversity and SDI (P<0.05).
    Conclusion: Although double blinding of peer review was not associated with higher geographic diversity of authors, several factors are also involved in the review process that could not be evaluated, such as blinding of editors. However, editors and publishers are encouraged to consider work from different countries to be able to index their journals in SCIE, Scopus, and MEDLINE where geographic diversity is a requirement.
    Keywords:  blinding; diversity; medical literature; peer review; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S415438
  6. Eur J Radiol. 2023 Jun 19. pii: S0720-048X(23)00254-1. [Epub ahead of print]165 110940
    The peer review process: A survey among scientists in radiology.
    Robert M Kwee, Maan T Almaghrabi, Thomas C Kwee.
      PURPOSE: To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process.METHOD: A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals.
    RESULTS: 244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal.
    CONCLUSION: Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.
    Keywords:  Peer review; Radiology; Research; Surveys and questionnaires
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110940
  7. Semin Ophthalmol. 2023 Jul 05. 1-3
    Readership Awareness Series - Paper 5: The Peer Review Process.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2023.2233197
  8. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(7): e0287547
    Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall's list by the scientific community-A bibliometric big data study.
    Georg Richtig, Marina Berger, Max Koeller, Markus Richtig, Erika Richtig, Jörg Scheffel, Marcus Maurer, Frank Siebenhaar.
      Beall's list is widely used to identify potentially predatory journals. With this study, we aim to investigate the impact of Beall's list on the perception of listed journals as well as on the publication and citation behavior of the scientific community. We performed comprehensive bibliometric analyses of data extracted from the ISSN database, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Crossref, Scopus and Web of Science. Citation analysis was performed by data extracted from the Crossref Cited-by database. At the time of analysis, Beall's list consisted of 1,289 standalone journals and 1,162 publishers, which corresponds to 21,735 individual journals. Of these, 3,206 (38.8%) were located in the United States, 2,484 in India (30.0%), and 585 in United Kingdom (7.1%). The majority of journals were listed in the ISSN database (n = 8,266), Crossref (n = 5,155), PubMed (n = 1,139), Scopus (n = 570), DOAJ (n = 224), PMC (n = 135) or Web of Science (n = 50). The number of articles published by journals on Beall's list as well as on the DOAJ continuously increased from 2011 to 2017. In 2018, the number of articles published by journals on Beall's list decreased. Journals on Beall's list were more often cited when listed in Web of Science (CI 95% 5.5 to 21.5; OR = 10.7) and PMC (CI 95% 6.3 to 14.1; OR = 9.4). It seems that the importance of Beall's list for the scientific community is overestimated. In contrast, journals are more likely to be selected for publication or citation when indexed by commonly used and renowned databases. Thus, the providers of these databases must be aware of their impact and verify that good publication practice standards are being applied by the journals listed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287547
  9. Am J Vet Res. 2023 Jun 30. pii: ajvr.23.07.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]84(7):
    Predatory journals-a cautionary tale for veterinary authors.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.23.07.editorial
  10. Complement Ther Med. 2023 Jun 30. pii: S0965-2299(23)00030-4. [Epub ahead of print] 102943
    Keeping Medical Science Trustworthy: The Threat by Predatory Journals.
    Olaf R van Loon, A J Tom van Loon.
      Since most scientific journals tend to ask article processes costs from authors, a new category of journals has developed of which the business model is commonly exclusively based on financial contributions by authors. Such journals have become known as predatory journals. The financial contributions that they ask are not always lower than those asked by high-quality journals although they offer less: there is commonly no real review, texts are not edited, and there are commonly no printed editions. The lack of serious reviews makes predatory journals attractive, however particularly for authors of low-quality (or even fraudulent) manuscripts. It is shown here that numerous - commonly fairly recent - journals, some of which may predatory, attract manuscripts by approaching authors of articles in high-quality journals like Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Publication of articles in such journals contaminates thorough literature and undermines the trustworthiness of the medical society. Any involvement in such journals (as an author, reviewer or editor) of such journals should therefore be discouraged.
    Keywords:  Medical science; Predatory journals; Scientific information transfer; Scientific reliability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2023.102943
  11. Prog Orthod. 2023 Jul 03. 24(1): 21
    "Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations.
    Christos Livas, Konstantina Delli.
      BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.METHODS: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.
    RESULTS: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.
    CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.
    Keywords:  Academics; Ethics; Open access; Predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-023-00471-6
  12. Imaging Sci Dent. 2023 Jun;53(2): 175-176
    ChatGPT and scientific writing: A reflection on the ethical boundaries.
    Thaís Santos Cerqueira Ocampo, Thaísa Pinheiro Silva, Caio Alencar-Palha, Francisco Haiter-Neto, Matheus L Oliveira.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20230085
  13. Crit Care. 2023 Jul 06. 27(1): 270
    Artificial intelligence is the new chief editor of Critical Care (maybe?).
    Michele Salvagno, Fabio Silvio Taccone.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04455-0
  14. Indian J Dent Res. 2023 Jan-Mar;34(1):34(1): 1
    Risks and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence for Peer-review.
    S M Balaji.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_466_23
  15. Perspect Med Educ. 2023 ;12(1): 261-270
    Writing with ChatGPT: An Illustration of its Capacity, Limitations & Implications for Academic Writers.
    Lorelei Lingard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072
  16. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2023 Jul 03. 17531934231183224
    Response to concerns about the increasing influence of artificial intelligence in publishing.
    Jane E McEachan, Wee L Lam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934231183224
  17. Nature. 2023 Jul 07.
    Scientists used ChatGPT to generate an entire paper from scratch - but is it any good?
    Gemma Conroy.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02218-z
  18. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Jun 30. 49(3): 105-106
    Could ChatGPT help you to write your next scientific paper?: concerns on research ethics related to usage of artificial intelligence tools.
    Joo-Young Park.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2023.49.3.105
  19. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2023 Jul 04.
    ChatGPT, authorship, and medical publishing.
    Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.11583
  20. Eur J Neurol. 2023 Jul 03.
    Review of Retracted Papers in the Field of Neurology.
    Xingbo Wang, Ning Gao, Huan Chen, Weiming Wang.
      PURPOSE: Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%), and no prompt (5.48%). The M (IQR) of citations in retractions in neurology was at 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with a M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with a M (IQR) of 5.127(3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).
    SUMMARY: The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.
    Keywords:  Retraction; academic misconduct; neurology; retracted papers; review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15960
  21. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 07 04. 29(4): 25
    What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?
    Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Natalie Evans, Guangwei Hu, Lex Bouter.
      Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.
    Keywords:  Allegation; Institutional investigation; Research integrity and ethics; Research misconduct; Retraction notice
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4
  22. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 07 04. 29(4): 26
    Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.
    Mariana D Ribeiro, Michael W Kalichman, Sonia M R Vasconcelos.
      In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.
    Keywords:  Correction of the literature; Funding; Research assessment; Research integrity; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00446-0
  23. Arch Dermatol Res. 2023 Jul 01.
    Retractions of dermatology articles are uncommon in the Retraction Watch database 1994-2021.
    Loma Dave, Shari R Lipner.
      
    Keywords:  Dermato-ethics; Dermatology articles; Dermatology journals; Ethics; Peer review; Plagiarism; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-023-02664-9
  24. Proc Biol Sci. 2023 07 12. 290(2002): 20230965
    Gender shapes the formation of review paper collaborations in microbiology.
    Rachel M Wheatley, Lois Ogunlana.
      Women are underrepresented in senior academic positions within microbiology globally. Studies show that gender bias affects the progression of women in academia, but there is evidence that improving conscious awareness of bias can improve equity in this regard. Here we analyse the publication data associated with review articles within the microbiology field to investigate the statistical associations with author gender. We analyse the data from review articles published between 2010 and 2022 in three leading microbiology review journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology, Trends in Microbiology and Annual Review of Microbiology. We find a significant association between the gender of the lead author and the gender of co-authors in multi-author publications. Review articles with men lead authors have a significantly reduced proportion of women co-authors compared to reviews with women lead authors. Given the existing differences in the proportions of men and women in lead author positions, this association may have important consequences for the relative visibility of women in microbiology, along with negative impacts on scientific output relating to reduced collaboration diversity.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; collaboration; gender; reviews; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.0965
  25. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 07 03. 6(7): e2321533
    Gender Representation Among Editors of Major Pediatric Journals.
    Jessica M Allan, Jeremy W Jacobs, Nancy D Spector, Priscila Rodrigues Armijo, Garrett S Booth, Julie K Silver.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.21533
  26. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2023 Jul;15(3): 209-239
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals.
    Muhammad Romail Manan, Iqra Nawaz, Sara Rahman, Areeba Razzaq, Fatima Zafar, Arisha Qazi, Kiera Liblik.
      Journals have been described as "duty bearers" of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored "excellent" on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00243-8.
    Keywords:  Diversity; Gender equity; Global South; Global health; LMIC; Publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-023-00243-8
  27. Urology. 2023 Jul 03. pii: S0090-4295(23)00568-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Engaging and Empowering Female Urologists in Academic Publishing and Peer Review.
    Connie N Wang, Gina M Badalato, Lindsey M Hartsell, Una Lee, Allison R Polland.
      N/A.
    Keywords:  career mobility; diversity; equity; inclusion; medical education; peer review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.06.021
  28. Ann Transl Med. 2023 Jun 30. 11(9): 325
    How to make a systematic review live up to its name: perspectives from journal editors.
    Binghan Shang, Yao Lin, Fanghui Yang, Kaiping Zhang.
      
    Keywords:  Systematic review (SR); editors’ perspectives; evidence-based medicine; methodology; review types
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-6305
  29. World J Exp Med. 2023 Jun 20. 13(3): 50-58
    Writing strategies for improving the access of medical literature.
    Pratishtha B Chaudhari, Akshat Banga.
      When conducting a literature review, medical authors typically search for relevant keywords in bibliographic databases or on search engines like Google. After selecting the most pertinent article based on the title's relevance and the abstract's content, they download or purchase the article and cite it in their manuscript. Three major elements influence whether an article will be cited in future manuscripts: the keywords, the title, and the abstract. This indicates that these elements are the "key dissemination tools" for research papers. If these three elements are not determined judiciously by authors, it may adversely affect the manuscript's retrievability, readability, and citation index, which can negatively impact both the author and the journal. In this article, we share our informed perspective on writing strategies to enhance the searchability and citation of medical articles. These strategies are adopted from the principles of search engine optimization, but they do not aim to cheat or manipulate the search engine. Instead, they adopt a reader-centric content writing methodology that targets well-researched keywords to the readers who are searching for them. Reputable journals, such as Nature and the British Medical Journal, emphasize "online searchability" in their author guidelines. We hope that this article will encourage medical authors to approach manuscript drafting from the perspective of "looking inside-out." In other words, they should not only draft manuscripts around what they want to convey to fellow researchers but also integrate what the readers want to discover. It is a call-to-action to better understand and engage search engine algorithms, so they yield information in a desired and self-learning manner because the "Cloud" is the new stakeholder.
    Keywords:  Access; Citation; Impact factor; Key words; Medical Subject Headings; Search engine optimization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5493/wjem.v13.i3.50
  30. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2023 Jul;15(3): 241-258
    Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals.
    Seema Rawat, Priyanka Mathe, Vishnu B Unnithan, Pratyush Kumar, Kumar Abhishek, Nazia Praveen, Kiran Guleria.
      Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect.
    Keywords:  Editorial board; Gynaecology; LMICs; Obstetrics; Publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-023-00241-w
  31. Brain Commun. 2023 ;5(4): fcad181
    Being a scientific editor at Brain Communications.
    Manuela Marescotti.
      Our Scientific Editor discusses her role at Brain Communications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad181
  32. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2023 Jul 12. 46(7): 651-657
    [A brief history of Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases on its 70th anniversary].
    Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
      In 2023, the Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases celebrates its 70th anniversary. This article reviewed the history of this journal over the past 70 years since its inception. Formerly known as the Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis, the peer-reviewed scientific periodical was established on July 1st, 1953 with the approval of Chinese Medical Association. During the period from 1953 to 1966, the journal went through its initial growth and cooperation phases, publishing a number of studies on the diagnosis, treatment as well as prevention and control of tuberculosis, leading the academic frontier of tuberculosis prevention and treatment nationwide. From 1978 to 1987, the journal was renamed as the Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory System Diseases, and its focus shifted from tuberculosis alone to a broader field of respiratory diseases. In 1987, the journal assumed its current name the Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. Since then, the journal has been sponsored and published by Chinese Medical Association, and jointly managed by the Chinese Tuberculosis Association and Chinese Respiratory Diseases Association, both branches of the Chinese Medical Association. As of now, the journal has become the most sought after and cited peer-reviewed periodical in the field of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases in China. This article reviewed the journal's historical development with emphasis on some of the key events along the way, such as the name change events, the change of address of the editorial board, the evolution of the journal format, the change of frequency and interval of journal publication, brief biography of all the editors-in-chief, achievements and honors ever won and bestowed upon the journal. The article also discussed some of the key experiences gained along the historical development of the journal, as well as their significance in promoting and facilitating the development and exchange in the field of tuberculosis, respiratory diseases, and multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of these health conditions, and provided an outlook on the future of the journal in the new historical period of high quality development.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112147-20220908-00748
  33. Nat Neurosci. 2023 Jul;26(7): 1131
    The value of journals.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-023-01388-3
  34. Surgery. 2023 Jul 05. pii: S0039-6060(23)00337-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    The power of YouTube videos for surgical journals.
    Ameera J M S AlHasan.
      Surgical journals use videos for educational and promotional purposes. YouTube is a suitable social media platform for sharing videos of journal content. The Surgery journal experience on YouTube can be used to learn important information on the nature of video content, the measurement of performance, and the benefits and challenges of using YouTube to disseminate journal content. Video content can be created to deliver information and infotainment. The online performance of videos can be measured using various metrics on YouTube Analytics, including content views and engagement metrics. There are several benefits to the use of YouTube videos by surgical journals, including the dissemination of reliable information, language versatility and diversity, open access and portability, increased visibility for authors and journals, and the humanization of the journal interface. However, challenges also need to be overcome, including viewer discretion where graphic content is concerned, copyright protection, limitations of Internet connection bandwidth, algorithmic barriers imposed by YouTube itself, and violations of biomedical ethics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.05.042
  35. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Jun;29(2): 77-80
    Update on the fourth version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: relevance for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.
    Ju-Hee Nho.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2023.06.14
  36. Nat Methods. 2023 Jul 03.
    Grant-writing rituals.
    Vivien Marx.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-023-01920-0
  37. Nature. 2023 Jul 05.
    Computer algorithms infer gender, race and ethnicity. Here's how to avoid their pitfalls.
    Jeffrey W Lockhart, Molly M King, Christin L Munsch.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02225-0
  38. Rehabil Nurs. 2023 Jul-Aug 01;48(4):48(4): 123
    Writing for Publication.
    Pamala D Larsen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000422
  39. Can Vet J. 2023 07;64(7): 607
    Reflections on scholarly publishing.
    Grant Maxie.
      
  40. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Jul 06.
    A reflection on journal rankings.
    Arturo Chiti.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06329-7
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒07‒09 at 08:44:22.