bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒08‒27
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 Sep;37(9): 1683-1684
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19333
  2. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023 Aug;pii: e00053-23. [Epub ahead of print]24(2):
      Education about scientific publishing and manuscript peer review is not universally provided in undergraduate science courses. Since peer review is integral to the scientific process and central to the identity of a scientist, we envision a paradigm shift where teaching peer review becomes integral to undergraduate science education. We hypothesize that teaching undergraduates how to peer review scientific manuscripts may facilitate their development of scientific literacy and identity formation. To this end, we developed a constructivist, service-learning curriculum for biology undergraduates to learn about the mechanisms of peer review using preprints and then to write and publish their own peer reviews of preprints as a way to authentically join the scientific community of practice. The curriculum was implemented as a semester-long intervention in one class and, in another class, as an embedded module intervention. Students' scientific literacy and peer review ability were assessed using quantitative methods. Student's perceptions of their scientific literacy and identity were assessed using thematic analysis of students' reflective writing. Here, we present data on the improvement in the peer review ability of undergraduates in both classes and data on the curriculum's interrelated impact on students' development of scientific literacy, identity, and belonging in peer and professional discourse spaces. These data suggest that undergraduates can and should be trained in peer review to foster the interrelated development of their scientific literacy, scientific identity, and sense of belonging in science.
    Keywords:  STEM; community of practice; disciplinary literacy; peer review; science identity; science literacy; sense of belonging
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00053-23
  3. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2023 Aug 17. pii: S2341-2879(23)00172-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2023.06.018
  4. Res Ethics. 2023 Apr;19(2): 121-138
      In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.
    Keywords:  bias; conflict of interest; ethics; financial; journals; non-financial; policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221148387
  5. Am Psychol. 2023 Aug 24.
      Peer review represents the foundation and gatekeeper to scientific dissemination, making it among the most important points to improve the representation of members of diverse gender, racial/ethnic, and other sociodemographic groups. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights equity, diversity, and inclusion among its guiding principles. APA journals publish a large volume of cutting-edge psychological research (processing 20,000 + submissions per year) and reach a wide audience and have the unique opportunity to contribute to APA's mission by disseminating data on the diversity of those involved in the production of psychological science. In this commentary, we highlight recommendations for actionable steps to promote greater equity in the peer review process. While our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that they are steps in the right direction and will contribute to conversations that have already begun regarding actions to address underrepresentation in the scientific process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001214
  6. Encephale. 2023 Aug 19. pii: S0013-7006(23)00111-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2023.06.011
  7. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023 Aug 25.
    JPGN Editorial Board
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000003931
  8. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Aug 23. pii: bmjebm-2023-112429. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Health; Information Science; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112429
  9. J Dent Educ. 2023 Aug 22.
      
    Keywords:  ethics; manuscript writing; professional interest; responsible conduct of research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13365
  10. bioRxiv. 2023 Aug 07. pii: 2023.07.31.551384. [Epub ahead of print]
      Data-driven computational analysis is becoming increasingly important in biomedical research, as the amount of data being generated continues to grow. However, the lack of practices of sharing research outputs, such as data, source code and methods, affects transparency and reproducibility of studies, which are critical to the advancement of science. Many published studies are not reproducible due to insufficient documentation, code, and data being shared. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 453 manuscripts published between 2016-2021 and found that 50.1% of them fail to share the analytical code. Even among those that did disclose their code, a vast majority failed to offer additional research outputs, such as data. Furthermore, only one in ten papers organized their code in a structured and reproducible manner. We discovered a significant association between the presence of code availability statements and increased code availability (p=2.71×10 -9 ). Additionally, a greater proportion of studies conducting secondary analyses were inclined to share their code compared to those conducting primary analyses (p=1.15*10 -07 ). In light of our findings, we propose raising awareness of code sharing practices and taking immediate steps to enhance code availability to improve reproducibility in biomedical research. By increasing transparency and reproducibility, we can promote scientific rigor, encourage collaboration, and accelerate scientific discoveries. We must prioritize open science practices, including sharing code, data, and other research products, to ensure that biomedical research can be replicated and built upon by others in the scientific community.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.31.551384
  11. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2023 Aug 01. 12(4): 534-544
      Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation.Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants.
    Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22).
    Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique.
    Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.
    Keywords:  Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER); Surgical technique; reporting checklist; reporting guideline; surgical innovation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn-22-509
  12. F1000Res. 2023 ;12 144
      Background: Scientists are increasingly concerned with making their work easy to verify and build upon. Associated practices include sharing data, materials, and analytic scripts, and preregistering protocols. This shift towards increased transparency and rigor has been referred to as a "credibility revolution." The credibility of empirical legal research has been questioned in the past due to its distinctive peer review system and because the legal background of its researchers means that many often are not trained in study design or statistics. Still, there has been no systematic study of transparency and credibility-related characteristics of published empirical legal research. Methods: To fill this gap and provide an estimate of current practices that can be tracked as the field evolves, we assessed 300 empirical articles from highly ranked law journals including both faculty-edited journals and student-edited journals. Results: We found high levels of article accessibility, especially among student-edited journals. Few articles stated that a study's data are available. Preregistration and availability of analytic scripts were very uncommon. Conclusion: We suggest that empirical legal researchers and the journals that publish their work cultivate norms and practices to encourage research credibility. Our estimates may be revisited to track the field's progress in the coming years.
    Keywords:  credibility; empirical legal research; metaresearch; open science; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127563.1
  13. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Aug 23. 8(1): 11
      BACKGROUND: Abstracts should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.METHODS: We selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. Abstracts were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.
    RESULTS: In 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.
    CONCLUSIONS: In our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; Article summary; Journal abstract; Manuscript title; Orthopedic periodicals; Scholarly authorship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00135-3