bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒12‒10
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science?
  2. Editors and Journals: Part II-Relationship between the Editor-in-Chief and the Owner of the Journal: The Consequences When Editorial Independence Dissolves.
  3. Preserving privacy in the era of openness: Commentary on open science requirements for identifiable data in psychological science journals.
  4. Cost of open access publishing in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.
  5. Beyond research dissemination: The unrealized power of visual abstracts to improve health care delivery.
  6. Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.
  7. Artificial Intelligence/ChatGPT-Generated Manuscripts and Disclosure: Comment.
  8. ChatGPT in the field of scientific publication.
  9. Center of mass change in the biomechanics citation network.
  10. What does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing?
  11. The road to publication: Advice from journal editors.
  12. Optimising process and methods for a living systematic review - 30 search updates and three review updates later.
  13. A Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models in Peer Review.
  14. Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.
  15. Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews.
  16. The Role of the Journal Impact Factor in Chemistry Research.
  17. Academic business research: Impact on academics versus impact on practice.
  18. Farewell Springer… Hello Wiley : The tale of an academic scientific periodical -"20 years later" the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling.
  19. ChatGPT, artificial intelligence and the Journal of Perinatal Medicine: correspondence.
  20. Using AI to Write Scholarly Articles in Nursing.
  1. Nature. 2023 Dec;624(7990): 22-25
    Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science?
    Philip Ball.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Mathematics and computing; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03817-6
  2. Skinmed. 2023 ;21(6): 411-415
    Editors and Journals: Part II-Relationship between the Editor-in-Chief and the Owner of the Journal: The Consequences When Editorial Independence Dissolves.
    Philip R Cohen, Lawrence Charles Parish, W Clark Lambert, Anthony A Gaspari.
      A symbiotic relationship between the editor and the owner of a medical journal is important for the journal to fulfill successfully the expectations of its readers and authors. Editorial freedom and transparency by owner of the journal are important qualities that enable the editor to provide valid scientific information in an unbiased manner. Unresolved impedance of editorial freedom or the persistent lack of transparency or both frequently results in untenable consequences for editor and often a substantial defamation of the journal's credibility. Unfortunately, misguided and inappropriate behavior by a medical society or the publication owner repeatedly occurs with the same devastating effect for the editor: prompt, unanticipated, and unjustified termination of the position at the journal. Alternatively, conditions imposed by a journal's owner may lead to the resignation of the editor because of untenable conditions. Because the owner does not have to account for its actions and there is no recourse for the editor, currently there seems to be no effective measures to prevent this tragic sequence of events in the future.
  3. Am Psychol. 2023 Dec 07.
    Preserving privacy in the era of openness: Commentary on open science requirements for identifiable data in psychological science journals.
    Mollie A Ruben, Morgan D Stosic.
      Psychological science journals are increasingly adopting open science (OS) policies (e.g., Transparency and Openness Promotion) requiring researchers to make all data and materials publicly available in an effort to drive research toward greater transparency and accessibility. These policies certainly have many benefits to the scientific community and public in helping ensure the quality of published research. However, the Center for Open Science has not offered any explicit guidelines regarding when exceptions to OS policies should be made, with only vague guidelines offered such as "when ethical or legal constraints prevent it." We argue that these ambiguous policies may create bias in decisions made by journal editors as to whom and what type of research is granted exceptions. When journals are too rigid in their exception policies, this may unintentionally contradict OS's goals to create a more valid and ethical science. We argue that journals should never mandate identifiable data to be posted publicly as a publication prerequisite. Maintaining participant anonymity should always come before OS policies to (a) align with psychologists' primary obligation of maintaining participant confidentiality, (b) encourage participation from the broader population and more specifically from marginalized communities, and (c) maintain unbiased, representative, and valid data. From empirical and ethical insights, we offer several solutions to ease the tensions between OS and participant privacy during the data collection and publication process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001282
  4. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Dec;9(4): 352-356
    Cost of open access publishing in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.
    Eric K Kim, Mark G Shrime.
      Objective: Open access (OA) publishing makes research more accessible but is associated with steep article processing charges (APCs). The study objective was to characterize the APCs of OA publishing in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) journals.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of published policies of 110 OHNS journals collated from three databases. The primary outcomes were the publishing model, APC for original research, and APC waiver policy.
    Results: We identified 110 OHNS journals (57 fully OA, 47 hybrid, 2 subscription-only, 4 unknown model). After excluding 12 journals (2 subscription-only, 4 unknown model, 5 OA with unspecified APCs, and 1 OA that accepts publications only from society members), we analyzed 98 journals, 23 of which did not charge APCs. Among 75 journals with nonzero APCs, the mean and median APCs were $2452 and $2900 (interquartile range: $1082-3520). Twenty-five journals (33.3%) offered APC subsidies for authors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and/or on a case-by-case basis. Eighty-five and 25 journals were based in high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs, respectively. The mean APC was higher among HIC journals than LMIC journals ($2606 vs. $958, p < 0.001).
    Conclusion: APCs range from tens to thousands of dollars with limited waivers for authors in LMICs.
    Keywords:  equity; open access; otolaryngology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/wjo2.78
  5. Surgery. 2023 Dec 03. pii: S0039-6060(23)00838-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Beyond research dissemination: The unrealized power of visual abstracts to improve health care delivery.
    Andrew M Ibrahim.
      Since the introduction of the visual abstract in 2016, more than 100 journals have adopted its use to disseminate scientific research. To date, 7 randomized cross-over trials have consistently reproduced its ability to disseminate research effectively. During the adoption of the visual abstract, there has also been a learning curve that has moved journals to dedicate more resources to it and create more formal guidelines. In parallel, the visual abstract has also had secondary gains of promoting clear communication and diversifying our editorial boards. Moving forward, the visual abstract is now ready to go beyond research dissemination to more directly influence patient care by adapting the tool for patient education, procedural teaching, research trial enrollment, or practice guideline nudges. Taken together, the visual abstract has come of age, and it is time to move beyond simply disseminating research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.11.001
  6. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Dec 04. 38(47): e405
    Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.
    Alikhan Zhaksylyk, Olena Zimba, Marlen Yessirkepov, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit.
      The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.
    Keywords:  Ethics in Publishing; Plagiarism; Research Misconduct; Scientific Dishonesty; Scientific Fraud; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405
  7. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023 Dec;pii: S1701-2163(23)00514-5. [Epub ahead of print]45(12): 102192
    Artificial Intelligence/ChatGPT-Generated Manuscripts and Disclosure: Comment.
    Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; disclosure; manuscript
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102192
  8. Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Oct;67(10): 934
    ChatGPT in the field of scientific publication.
    Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_585_23
  9. Sports Biomech. 2023 Dec 06. 1-11
    Center of mass change in the biomechanics citation network.
    Duane Knudson.
      This study examined the hypothesis that the network of citation in biomechanics journals would change over the last decade and specifically the centrality of the journal Sports Biomechanics. Top 20 cited biomechanics journals identified using the 'Journal Citation Relationships' feature from Journal Citation Reports were extracted for 12 'seed' biomechanics journals in 2011, 2016, and 2021. From 2011 till 2021 the total number of top cited biomechanics journals in Journal Citation Reports decreased (17%) from 90 to 74, while the citations to these journals nearly increased 5-fold (8,051 to 39,574). Top Journal Citation Reports cited biomechanics journals changed over time, indicating variability in the centrality of many journals in the biomechanics citation network based on this prestigious database. Over time there were decreasing citation of medical journals, as well as increasing citation of open access mega journals and the journal Sports Biomechanics. Citation network analysis provides insight into the changing structure of knowledge creation in biomechanics, with recent trends towards applied research particularly on wearable sensors published in mega journals.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; centrality; journal; mega journal; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2023.2287030
  10. J Prof Nurs. 2023 Nov-Dec;49:pii: S8755-7223(23)00119-9. [Epub ahead of print]49 188-189
    What does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing?
    Panagiotis Tsigaris, Graham Kendall, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      The debate surrounding "predatory publishing" continues to be unable to find entirely effective solutions to dealing with this problem, despite fervent efforts by many academics and policy makers around the world. Given this situation, we were interested in appreciating whether ChatGPT would be able to offer insight and solutions, to complement current human-based efforts.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Safelists (whitelists) and watchlists (blacklists); Transparency; Trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.08.002
  11. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 Dec 01. pii: S0190-9622(23)03240-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    The road to publication: Advice from journal editors.
    Cristian Navarrete-Dechent, Karalikkattil T Ashique, John Ingram, Lidia Rudnicka, Yolanda Gilaberte, Johannes Ring, Dedee F Murrell, Dirk Elston, Bruce Thiers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2023.11.038
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Dec 01. pii: S0895-4356(23)00321-9. [Epub ahead of print] 111231
    Optimising process and methods for a living systematic review - 30 search updates and three review updates later.
    Ailsa R Butler, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Tari Turner, Nicola Lindson.
      Living systematic reviews (LSR) are systematic reviews that are regularly updated, allowing new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. To be of benefit, updates must be published in a timely manner. Many LSR do not publish more than one update. As authors of a systematic review that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time, we describe the steps in our LSR process with the aim of informing and assisting authors carrying out their own regularly updated LSR. Key features of the process that require consideration are as follows: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback; as soon as a review update is complete you may be planning your next, and can incorporate useful feedback. We suggest seeking feedback on your findings and methods and, where appropriate, incorporating them with transparency.
    Keywords:  Evidence Synthesis; Systematic review; living evidence; living guidelines; living systematic review; methods for living systematic review; methods for planning and reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111231
  13. Nicotine Tob Res. 2023 Dec 06. pii: ntad242. [Epub ahead of print]
    A Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models in Peer Review.
    Marcus Munafò.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntad242
  14. Res Synth Methods. 2023 Dec 03.
    Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.
    Danielle Pollock, Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer C Stone, Edoardo Aromataris, Miloslav Klugar, Anna M Scott, Cindy Stern, Amanda Ross-White, Ashley Whitehorn, Rick Wiechula, Larissa Shamseer, Zachary Munn.
      Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.
    Keywords:  evidence synthesis; methodology; predatory journal; predatory publishing; qualitative research; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1684
  15. Sci Technol Human Values. 2024 Jan;49(1): 78-104
    Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews.
    Kirsten Bell, Patricia Kingori, David Mills.
      Over the past decade, the phenomenon of "fake" peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, "genuine" peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.
    Keywords:  COPE; Retraction Watch; fake reviews; knowledge production; peer review; refereed manuscripts; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221112463
  16. Chimia (Aarau). 2023 Feb 22. 77(1-2): 62-65
    The Role of the Journal Impact Factor in Chemistry Research.
    Rosaria Ciriminna, Mario Pagliaro.
      The journal impact factor (JIF) is a skewed metrics whose value is dictated by just a few highly cited articles. Therefore, the use of the JIF to evaluate journals, scholars, or research institutes is flawed. Still, the JIF continues to play a central role in evaluating scholarship in chemistry, the most reluctant amid scientific disciplines to embrace the principles of open science. This study investigates the origins of this social behavior, and suggests avenues to improve scholarly communication in the chemical sciences following the example of the life sciences.
    Keywords:  Chemistry; Chemistry journals; Journal impact factor; Preprint; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2023.62
  17. PLoS One. 2023 ;18(12): e0289034
    Academic business research: Impact on academics versus impact on practice.
    Vivek Astvansh, Ethan Fridmanski.
      Business journalists and editors of academic business journals have lamented that academic research has little use for any nonacademic stakeholders, including companies, nonprofits, regulators, and governments. Although emotionally unsettling, these commentaries are bereft of evidence on how well a journal's academic impact (measured by impact factor) translates into practice impact. The authors provide this evidence. Specifically, they sample 56 journals, spanning 12 business disciplines, from 2000 to 2020. For each journal-year, they measure two- and five-year impact factor, which proxies the impact on academics. Next, for each article published in each journal-year, they collect attention score-a weighted sum of the number of times the article is cited in 19 types of practitioner outlets-from Altmetric. The authors then measure the correlation coefficient between the impact factor and attention score for each journal in periods of two-year and five-year. The coefficient indicates how well the journal's academic impact has translated into practice impact. Among the 12 disciplines, international business discipline tops the chart, while information systems, accounting, and finance occupy the bottom positions. American Economic Review leads the 56 journals, with Journal of Marketing Research and California Management Review as close followers. The findings highlight the impact of academic business research-or the lack thereof.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289034
  18. J Cell Commun Signal. 2023 Dec 07.
    Farewell Springer… Hello Wiley : The tale of an academic scientific periodical -"20 years later" the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling.
    Bernard Perbal.
      Academic publishing is the support for dissemination of research findings that constitute the grounds upon which new orientations and improvements are based on sharing breaking ideas, critical analyses of data, and argumentations that sustain the development of collaborative research projects. The wide diffusion of new scientific findings is pivotal to the progress of medical sciences, a salient feature of human societal fullness and intellectual welfare. In a practical way, the value of academic publishing can be ascertained by its capacity to reach a wide number of readers from different fields that may provide the soil for interactive projects. The challenges are numerous (Zul in Challenges in Academic Publishing; Navigating the Obstacles, 2023). An examination of the means developed to survey the individual performances of scientists, based on their publications, has led me to comment in this editorial on pitfalls that muddle the way to upstanding evaluations mainly based on irrelevant metrics.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Artificial intelligence; Downloads; Impact factor; Performance metrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-023-00796-1
  19. J Perinat Med. 2023 Dec 08.
    ChatGPT, artificial intelligence and the Journal of Perinatal Medicine: correspondence.
    Amnuay Kleebayoon, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; ethics; intelligence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2023-0314
  20. Nurse Educ. 2024 Jan-Feb 01;49(1):49(1): 52
    Using AI to Write Scholarly Articles in Nursing.
    Marilyn H Oermann.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001577
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒12‒11 at 2:01.