bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒11‒05
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Open-access reformers launch next bold publishing plan.
  2. The gray zone between legitimate and predatory open access scientific publishing.
  3. Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.
  4. ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.
  5. A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.
  6. The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing.
  7. Open access: evolution not revolution.
  8. The impact of COVID-19 on open access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine: an in-depth analysis.
  9. How to publish a lot-The sequel to writing.
  10. The Author Truncation "et al." in Article References: An Anachronism That Needs to Change.
  11. Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal.
  12. New collaborative statement by Bioethics Journal Editors on generative AI use.
  13. Patient partnership at BMJ.
  14. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement and call to action on artificial intelligence.
  15. Inappropriate Journal Authorship.
  1. Nature. 2023 Nov;623(7986): 238-240
    Open-access reformers launch next bold publishing plan.
    Layal Liverpool.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03342-6
  2. Rev Invest Clin. 2023 Nov 01.
    The gray zone between legitimate and predatory open access scientific publishing.
    Claudia Alvarado-de la Barrera, Santiago Ávila-Ríos, Gustavo Reyes-Terán.
      Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic carreers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Open access publishing; Predatory publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.23000191
  3. Intern Emerg Med. 2023 Nov 03.
    Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.
    John P A Ioannidis, Zacharias Maniadis.
      Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citations; Fraud; Gaming; Gift authorship; Impact factor; Research assessment; Self-citations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03447-w
  4. Elife. 2023 Nov 03. pii: RP90230. [Epub ahead of print]12
    ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.
    Jeroen P H Verharen.
      The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence ChatGPT was used to analyze language use in these reports, which demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional lexicon- and rule-based language models. As expected, most reviews for these published papers were seen as favorable by ChatGPT (89.8% of reviews), and language use was mostly polite (99.8% of reviews). However, this analysis also demonstrated high levels of variability in how each reviewer scored the same paper, indicating the presence of subjectivity in the peer review process. The results further revealed that female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers, indicating a gender bias in reviewing. In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author, for which I discuss potential causes. Together, this study highlights the potential of generative artificial intelligence in performing natural language processing of specialized scientific texts. As a proof of concept, I show that ChatGPT can identify areas of concern in scientific peer review, underscoring the importance of transparent peer review in studying equitability in scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; meta-science; natural language processing; neuroscience; none; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90230
  5. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2023 Oct 25. 65(1): e1-e5
    A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.
    Gina Joubert.
      BACKGROUND:  Peer review frequently improves a manuscript, but authors may consider some reviewer feedback negative, inappropriate or unclear. This study aims to summarise and analyse review comments received by authors.METHODS:  This longitudinal study included all submissions of which the researcher was an author, reviewed by any journal during 2020-2022. First-round reviews were retrieved from emails and documents received by the authors or the faculty's medical editors or the journal platforms. A confidential datasheet with review items compiled from literature and the researcher's experience as author and reviewer was completed for each submission. Review comments were noted verbatim for subjective items such as rude or vague statements.
    RESULTS:  The 65 submissions received 118 reviews from 36 journals, mainly in the form of unstructured narrative reports (59%). The majority of first-round reviews (58%), including those for rejected submissions, contained some positive comments. Reviewers frequently (75% of reviews, 88% of submissions) required some expansion of information. Vague and incorrect statements occurred in 15% and 18% of reviews, respectively. Only two reviews contained statements that could be considered rude. The types of comments made were associated with the review format.
    CONCLUSION:  The majority of reviews contained some positive comments and rude comments were extremely rare. Reviewers frequently requested the expansion of information provided.Contribution: This study gives insight to authors, reviewers and editors regarding the type and tone of review comments. This could guide authors during manuscript preparation and authors, reviewers and editors during the review process.
    Keywords:  experience; health sciences.; manuscript review; peer review; publication; review comments; review feedback
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v65i1.5753
  6. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2023 Oct 31.
    The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing.
    Arthur Tang, Kin-Kit Li, Kin On Kwok, Liujiao Cao, Stanley Luong, Wilson Tam.
      The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic research writing has revolutionized the field, offering powerful tools like ChatGPT and Bard to aid researchers in content generation and idea enhancement. We explore the current state of transparency regarding generative AI use in nursing academic research journals, emphasizing the need for explicitly declaring the use of generative AI by authors in the manuscript. Out of 125 nursing studies journals, 37.6% required explicit statements about generative AI use in their authors' guidelines. No significant differences in impact factors or journal categories were found between journals with and without such requirement. A similar evaluation of medicine, general and internal journals showed a lower percentage (14.5%) including the information about generative AI usage. Declaring generative AI tool usage is crucial for maintaining the transparency and credibility in academic writing. Additionally, extending the requirement for AI usage declarations to journal reviewers can enhance the quality of peer review and combat predatory journals in the academic publishing landscape. Our study highlights the need for active participation from nursing researchers in discussions surrounding standardization of generative AI declaration in academic research writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12938
  7. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023 11;105(8): 681
    Open access: evolution not revolution.
    B Rogers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2023.0087
  8. J Med Life. 2023 Jul;16(7): 967-973
    The impact of COVID-19 on open access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine: an in-depth analysis.
    Lna Malkawi, Reem Hassan, Mohammad Ali Alshrouf, Nosaiba Al-Ryalat, Saif Aldeen AlRyalat.
      In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous initiatives have been implemented to ensure open access availability of COVID-19-related articles to make published articles accessible for anyone. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on open-access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles and reviews published in these fields during the COVID-19 publishing era using the Web of Science database. We analyzed several indicators between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related articles, including the number and percentage of open-access articles, the top ten cited articles, and the number of reviews. In total, 67,100 articles were published in radiology and nuclear medicine between January 2020 and June 2022. Among those, more than half (51.1%) were open-access articles. Among these publications, 2,336 were COVID-19-related, and 64,764 were non-COVID-19-related. However, articles related to COVID-19 had an open access rate of 91.5%, compared to only 49.6% of the non-COVID-19-related articles. Moreover, COVID-19-related articles had a higher percentage of highly cited and hot papers compared to articles not related to COVID-19. Moreover, most highly cited studies were related to chest computerized tomography (CT) scan findings in COVID-19 patients. The findings emphasize the significant proportion of open access COVID-19-related publications in radiology and nuclear medicine, facilitating widespread and timely access to everyone.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; nuclear medicine; open access publishing; policymakers; publishing; radiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2023-0075
  9. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023 Oct;8(5): 1257-1258
    How to publish a lot-The sequel to writing.
    Romaine F Johnson.
      
    Keywords:  academic writing; publication strategies; writing productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1142
  10. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2023 Nov;31(4): 401-407
    The Author Truncation "et al." in Article References: An Anachronism That Needs to Change.
    Achilles Thoma, Jessica Murphy, Charlie H Goldsmith.
      Background: Valuable research requires contribution from many experts; however, the "et al." truncation often keeps all individuals from being acknowledged. The adoption of a new citation rule (list all authors up to 30, followed by et al.) would allow more authors to be acknowledged. The purpose of this study was to (1) explore the citation styles of the top 10 Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medical journals and (2) compare the number of extra pages required, and the number of additional authors acknowledged when the "new rule" is implemented. Methods: The top 10 journals in Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medicine were identified. The citation styles used in each of the journals were reviewed and the reference list from a recently published article was extracted. The original reference list was used to create an Extended Reference List using the new rule. Results: Most journals implemented "et al." when seven or more authors were listed. Ten articles required additional pages to accommodate the Extended Reference List. When the "et al." truncation was introduced after 30 authors, there was an almost 100% chance of all authors being included. The adoption of this rule rarely resulted in the need for additional pages, especially within Plastic Surgery. Conclusions: In a time of electronic publishing, where constraints such as article and journal page length should not be important factors, all authors should be recognized. The use of the "et al." truncation should be discouraged by all individuals involved in the production and publication of research. Scenario You are asked by the Editor-in-Chief of your specialty's journal to review an article in your area of expertise. You gladly accept the task. One of the questions you are required to answer in your review is whether the authors of the submitted manuscript have missed any important articles in their references. As you are the recognized expert in this field, you glance at the references to see if a key article you published 3 years earlier has been included. The first author of that article was a junior resident in your service and the research was done under your supervision. To their credit, the authors included the said article, but you are dismayed that the reference does not include your name. It includes only the names of the first three authors, all junior residents in your service. Your name, and the names of many others, are lost in the et al. truncation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503211051109
  11. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2023 Oct 30. pii: S2341-2879(23)00227-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal.
    en representación del Grupo de Trabajo de Pediatría Basada en la Evidencia de la AEPap y el Comité de Pediatría Basada en la Evidencia de la AEP
      The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.
    Keywords:  Checklist; Diseño de investigaciones epidemiológicas; Epidemiologic research design; Escritura médica: estándares; Lista de verificación; Medical writing/standards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2023.10.003
  12. Account Res. 2023 Nov 01.
    New collaborative statement by Bioethics Journal Editors on generative AI use.
    Lisa M Rasmussen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2276169
  13. BMJ. 2023 Oct 31. 383 p2505
    Patient partnership at BMJ.
    Emma Doble, Amy Price, Sophia Walker, Sophie Cook, Kamran Abbasi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2505
  14. Curr Med Res Opin. 2023 Nov 01. 1-2
    International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement and call to action on artificial intelligence.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2273139
  15. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2023 Oct 29. 14(4):
    Inappropriate Journal Authorship.
    Marshall A Lichtman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10513
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒11‒05 at 17:37.