bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒03‒03
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science.
  2. Adapting Open Science and Pre-registration to Longitudinal Research.
  3. Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.
  4. Is ChatGPT making scientists hyper-productive? The highs and lows of using AI.
  5. Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.
  6. Theorising Support for Interdisciplinary Early-Career Researchers Using Communicative Genre and 'Rules of the Game'.
  7. The critical role of editors and reviewers as guardians of science.
  8. The Intersection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Open Access in Scholarly Publishing: A Summary from the Ecological Society of America's Workshop on Exploring Barriers and Solutions.
  9. Editorial: Pathology and Oncology Research: addressing publication ethics issues.
  10. Publication in Indian biomedical journals - Perspective of an editor.
  11. Precision writing in scientific manuscripts: The importance of choosing the right words.
  12. A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article.
  13. Practical Steps to Writing a Scientific Manuscript.
  14. Predatory Journals: What the researchers and authors should know.
  15. Sharing Perioperative Nursing Expertise Through Publication: A Guide for the Novice Author.
  16. Correction: Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.
  17. Recent Updates to CSE Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications: 7 Ways to Integrate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Into Scholarly Publishing.
  18. Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.
  19. As the world turns: scientific publishing in the digital era.
  20. Reflections on 30 years of publishing osteoarthritis research: Where we've been and where we're going.
  21. The first year of a new era.
  22. Influential abortion-pill studies retracted: the science behind the decision.
  1. PLoS Biol. 2024 Feb;22(2): e3002502
    Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science.
    Michele Avissar-Whiting, Frédérique Belliard, Stefano M Bertozzi, Amy Brand, Katherine Brown, Géraldine Clément-Stoneham, Stephanie Dawson, Gautam Dey, Daniel Ecer, Scott C Edmunds, Ashley Farley, Tara D Fischer, Maryrose Franko, James S Fraser, Kathryn Funk, Clarisse Ganier, Melissa Harrison, Anna Hatch, Haley Hazlett, Samantha Hindle, Daniel W Hook, Phil Hurst, Sophien Kamoun, Robert Kiley, Michael M Lacy, Marcel LaFlamme, Rebecca Lawrence, Thomas Lemberger, Maria Leptin, Elliott Lumb, Catriona J MacCallum, Christopher Steven Marcum, Gabriele Marinello, Alex Mendonça, Sara Monaco, Kleber Neves, Damian Pattinson, Jessica K Polka, Iratxe Puebla, Martyn Rittman, Stephen J Royle, Daniela Saderi, Richard Sever, Kathleen Shearer, John E Spiro, Bodo Stern, Dario Taraborelli, Ron Vale, Claudia G Vasquez, Ludo Waltman, Fiona M Watt, Zara Y Weinberg, Mark Williams.
      Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but traditional peer review at journals is coming under increased scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of transparency. As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. Preprints are enabling new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial than traditional journal peer review, and to thus fundamentally shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration. In this Consensus View, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provide recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
  2. Infant Child Dev. 2024 Jan-Feb;33(1):pii: e2315. [Epub ahead of print]33(1):
    Adapting Open Science and Pre-registration to Longitudinal Research.
    Isaac T Petersen, Keith S Apfelbaum, Bob McMurray.
      Open science practices, such as pre-registration and data sharing, increase transparency and may improve the replicability of developmental science. However, developmental science has lagged behind other fields in implementing open science practices. This lag may arise from unique challenges and considerations of longitudinal research. In this paper, preliminary guidelines are provided for adapting open science practices to longitudinal research to facilitate researchers' use of these practices. The guidelines propose a serial and modular approach to registration that includes an initial pre-registration of the methods and focal hypotheses of the longitudinal study, along with subsequent pre- or co-registered questions, hypotheses, and analysis plans associated with specific papers. Researchers are encouraged to share their research materials and relevant data with associated papers, and to report sufficient information for replicability. In addition, there should be careful consideration about requirements regarding the timing of data sharing, to avoid disincentivizing longitudinal research.
    Keywords:  Open science; development; longitudinal; pre-registration; replication; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2315
  3. Philos Technol. 2024 ;37(1): 34
    Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.
    René van Woudenberg, Chris Ranalli, Daniel Bracker.
      Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.
    Keywords:  AI; Agency; Assertion; Authorship; ChatGPT; Conservativism; Intention; Normativity; Promising
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1
  4. Nature. 2024 Feb 28.
    Is ChatGPT making scientists hyper-productive? The highs and lows of using AI.
    McKenzie Prillaman.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00592-w
  5. J Osteopath Med. 2024 Feb 27.
    Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.
    Molly Kearney, Maren Downing, Elizabeth A Gignac.
      CONTEXT: This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education.OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine.
    METHODS: To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions.
    RESULTS: Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation.
    CONCLUSIONS: Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.
    Keywords:  authorship; internship; medical education; plagiarism; research integrity; residency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0211
  6. Qual Health Res. 2024 Mar 01. 10497323231225150
    Theorising Support for Interdisciplinary Early-Career Researchers Using Communicative Genre and 'Rules of the Game'.
    Ninna Meier, Trish Greenhalgh, Gemma Hughes, Chrysanthi Papoutsi.
      Qualitative social scientists working in medical faculties have to meet multiple expectations. On the one hand, they are expected to comply with the philosophical and theoretical expectations of the social sciences. On the other hand, they may also be expected to produce publications which align with biomedical definitions and framings of quality. As interdisciplinary scholars, they must handle (at least) two sets of journal editors, peer reviewers, grant-awarding panels, and conference audiences. In this paper, we extend the current knowledge base on the 'dual expectations' challenge by drawing on Orlikowski and Yates' theoretical concept of communicative genres. A 'genre' in this context is a format of communication (e.g. letter, email, academic paper, and conference presentation) aimed at a particular audience, having a particular material form and socio-linguistic style, and governed by both formal requirements and unwritten social rules. Becoming a member of any community of practice involves becoming familiar with its accepted communicative genres and adept in using them. Academic writing, for example, is a craft that is learned through participation in the social process of communicating one's ideas to one's peers in journal articles and other formats. In this reflective paper, we show how the concept of a communicative genre can sensitise us to the conflicting and often dissonant expectations and rule systems governing different academic fields. We use this key concept to suggest ways in which the faculty can support early-career researchers to progress in careers which straddle qualitative social science and medical science.
    Keywords:  academic writing; early-career researchers; genre; sociology; support
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231225150
  7. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2024 Jan-Feb;18(1):pii: S1934-5925(24)00012-1. [Epub ahead of print]18(1): 100-101
    The critical role of editors and reviewers as guardians of science.
    Armin Arbab-Zadeh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2024.01.001
  8. Sci Ed. 2023 Jun;46(2): 73-77
    The Intersection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Open Access in Scholarly Publishing: A Summary from the Ecological Society of America's Workshop on Exploring Barriers and Solutions.
    Erin C Landis, Leonard Jack, Amy King.
      
  9. Pathol Oncol Res. 2024 ;30 1611691
    Editorial: Pathology and Oncology Research: addressing publication ethics issues.
    József Tímár, Andrea Ladányi, Anna Sebestyén, László Kopper.
      
    Keywords:  peer review; publication ethics; quality control; scientometry; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/pore.2024.1611691
  10. Indian J Psychiatry. 2024 Jan;66(1): 1-2
    Publication in Indian biomedical journals - Perspective of an editor.
    Om P Singh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_48_24
  11. Indian J Psychiatry. 2024 Jan;66(1): 116
    Precision writing in scientific manuscripts: The importance of choosing the right words.
    Harish M Tharayil, Mirza J Beg, Chittaranjan Andrade.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_652_23
  12. J Breast Imaging. 2023 Jul 28. 5(4): 480-485
    A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article.
    Manisha Bahl.
      Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.
    Keywords:  manuscript; research; scientific review article; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028
  13. J Breast Imaging. 2022 Dec 11. 4(6): 640-648
    Practical Steps to Writing a Scientific Manuscript.
    Lars J Grimm, Jennifer A Harvey.
      Writing a scientific manuscript can be a very intimidating process for new writers. However, writing a scientific research article can be broken down into discrete steps to make the process more digestible. Radiology manuscripts have common conventions that differ from research in technical and other medical fields. The practical steps summarized within describe what to do before you start writing, successful writing strategies, and common writing styles. Templates for producing an abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion are outlined, along with tips to collect references and produce high quality figures. All writers can benefit from an outside writing perspective, and the practical steps described should ease the transition from a blank page to a finished manuscript.
    Keywords:  manuscript; radiology; research; scientific article; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbac059
  14. Am J Med. 2024 Feb 22. pii: S0002-9343(24)00100-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Predatory Journals: What the researchers and authors should know.
    Atanu Chandra, Sugata Dasgupta.
      
    Keywords:  Beall list; Predatory journal; Pubmed; peer-reviewed journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.02.015
  15. AORN J. 2024 Mar;119(3): 186-196
    Sharing Perioperative Nursing Expertise Through Publication: A Guide for the Novice Author.
    Rebecca Vortman, Pamayla E Darbyshire, Ray-An Talatala.
      Perioperative nurses can share their expertise by writing for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Writing can help perioperative nurses grow their professional careers and advance the science of the perioperative nursing specialty. Despite the value and importance of publishing, perioperative nurses may lack confidence and fear rejection and negative feedback; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the authoring and publishing processes can assuage these fears. This education article describes concepts associated with scholarly publishing for authors and offers strategies to encourage perioperative nurses to share their practice experiences or research via peer-reviewed journals. Key steps associated with the writing and publication process are described. The article also explains the editorial and peer-review processes and provides supportive strategies for authors when a manuscript is not accepted initially.
    Keywords:  author guidelines; authorship; evidence-based practice (EBP); peer-reviewed journal; publication process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.14094
  16. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Mar 02.
    Correction: Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.
    Francesca Wirth, Cathal A Cadogan, Daniela Fialová, Ankie Hazen, Monika Lutters, Vibhu Paudyal, Anita E Weidmann, Betul Okuyan, Martin C Henman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01712-2
  17. Sci Ed. 2022 Oct 11. 45(4): 117-120
    Recent Updates to CSE Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications: 7 Ways to Integrate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Into Scholarly Publishing.
    Leonard Jack.
      The Council of Science Editors' (CSE) Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications was first published in 2006, and the full document was updated in 2009 and again in 2012. In 2018, the CSE Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) began making updates on a rolling basis as new sections were added or existing sections updated to reflect new information or best practices. This updated method for amending the document allows for more rapid dissemination of its contents so that recommendations can be quickly put into practice in journal operations. In this column, the reader is advised of a recent update that provides guidance on the importance of advancing best practices in scholarly publishing. Content in this update, while condensed, was taken largely verbatim from the CSE's Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. However, readers are encouraged to visit the full set of Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications at https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/publication-ethics/.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36591/se-d-4504-02
  18. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(2): e0299806
    Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.
    Peiling Wang, Dietmar Wolfram, Emrie Gilbert.
      Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299806
  19. Environ Health. 2024 Feb 26. 23(1): 24
    As the world turns: scientific publishing in the digital era.
    David Ozonoff.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01063-5
  20. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2024 Feb 23. pii: S1063-4584(24)00052-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reflections on 30 years of publishing osteoarthritis research: Where we've been and where we're going.
    Michelle S Yau, Stephanie R Filbay, Joel A Block, L Stefan Lohmander.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2024.02.008
  21. Elife. 2024 Feb 29. pii: e96413. [Epub ahead of print]13
    The first year of a new era.
    Timothy E Behrens, Yamini Dalal, Diane M Harper, Detlef Weigel.
      What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; research assessment; research communication; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.96413
  22. Nature. 2024 Feb 27.
    Influential abortion-pill studies retracted: the science behind the decision.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Law; Public health; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00556-0
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒03‒03 at 7:36.