bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒03‒10
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Understanding scholar-trajectories across scientific periodicals.
  2. Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.
  3. China has a list of suspect journals and it's just been updated.
  4. Millions of research papers at risk of disappearing from the Internet.
  5. Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).
  6. How to avoid being duped by predatory journals.
  7. A clinic doctor transferring a patient as a coauthor of a case report: A preliminary study.
  8. Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges.
  9. Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?
  10. Responsible but Innovative Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing.
  11. Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication-JAMA Network Guidance.
  12. Addressing the Novel Implications of Generative AI for Academic Publishing, Education, and Research.
  13. A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.
  14. The unbearable burden of peer review?
  15. Will ChatGPT take over the manuscript review process?
  16. Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment.
  17. Of editorial processes, AI models, and medical literature: the Magnetic Resonance Audiometry experiment.
  18. CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports.
  19. Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updated Information for Authors.
  20. Mandatory data and code sharing for research published by The BMJ.
  21. What's in a Name? Destigmatizing Language Regarding People Who Use Alcohol or Drugs in Publications and Journal Title.
  22. Navigating a Startup Journey: The Journal of Medical Toxicology.
  23. Registered reports and replications: An ongoing Journal of School Psychology initiative.
  24. Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning.
  25. Anchoring our science with keywords.
  26. Nature publishes too few papers from women researchers - that must change.
  27. The landscape of publishing in Neuroscience: Honouring our scientific heritage and shaping the future of research.
  28. Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star's physics lab.
  1. Sci Rep. 2024 03 04. 14(1): 5309
    Understanding scholar-trajectories across scientific periodicals.
    Yangliu Fan, Anders Blok, Sune Lehmann.
      Despite the rapid growth in the number of scientific publications, our understanding of author publication trajectories remains limited. Here we propose an embedding-based framework for tracking author trajectories in a geometric space that leverages the information encoded in the publication sequences, namely the list of the consecutive publication venues for each scholar. Using the publication histories of approximately 30,000 social media researchers, we obtain a knowledge space that broadly captures essential information about periodicals as well as complex (inter-)disciplinary structures of science. Based on this space, we study academic success through the prism of movement across scientific periodicals. We use a measure from human mobility, the radius of gyration, to characterize individual scholars' trajectories. Results show that author mobility across periodicals negatively correlates with citations, suggesting that successful scholars tend to publish in a relatively proximal range of periodicals. Overall, our framework discovers intricate structures in large-scale sequential data and provides new ways to explore mobility and trajectory patterns.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54693-7
  2. PeerJ. 2024 ;12 e16824
    Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.
    Amanda D Clark, Tanner C Myers, Todd D Steury, Ali Krzton, Julio Yanes, Angela Barber, Jacqueline Barry, Subarna Barua, Katherine Eaton, Devadatta Gosavi, Rebecca Nance, Zahida Pervaiz, Chidozie Ugochukwu, Patricia Hartman, Laurie S Stevison.
      Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.
    Keywords:  Article processing charge; Citation advantage; Hybrid journal; Mixed-effect model; Open-access publishing; Paywall
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16824
  3. Nature. 2024 Mar 06.
    China has a list of suspect journals and it's just been updated.
    Smriti Mallapaty.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00629-0
  4. Nature. 2024 Mar 04.
    Millions of research papers at risk of disappearing from the Internet.
    Sarah Wild.
      
    Keywords:  Information technology; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00616-5
  5. Heliyon. 2024 Mar 15. 10(5): e26448
    Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).
    Ahmed Hassan Kamal.
      Objective: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.Methods: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.
    Results: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.
    Conclusion: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.
    Keywords:  Attitude; Knowledge; Open-access journals; Orthopedics; Practice; Predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26448
  6. BMJ. 2024 Mar 07. 384 q452
    How to avoid being duped by predatory journals.
    Eva Amsen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q452
  7. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2024 Mar 04.
    A clinic doctor transferring a patient as a coauthor of a case report: A preliminary study.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      AIM: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend.METHODS: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons.
    RESULTS: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors.
    CONCLUSIONS: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace.
    Keywords:  author; authorship; case report; clinic; coauthor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15920
  8. Account Res. 2024 Mar 06. 1-23
    Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges.
    Mohammad Hosseini, Alex O Holcombe, Marton Kovacs, Hub Zwart, Daniel S Katz, Kristi Holmes.
      Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members' contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.
    Keywords:  Authorship; ethics; group Processes; publishing; reward
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557
  9. Account Res. 2024 Mar 05. 1-24
    Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?
    Daniel S Dotson.
      The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider's timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
    Keywords:  Authorship; large hadron gollider; medicine; physics; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2318790
  10. JID Innov. 2024 Mar;4(2): 100257
    Responsible but Innovative Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing.
    Trevor Champagne, Neil Shear.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Dermatology; Large language models; Machine learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100257
  11. JAMA. 2024 Mar 07.
    Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication-JAMA Network Guidance.
    Annette Flanagin, Romain Pirracchio, Rohan Khera, Michael Berkwits, Yulin Hswen, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3471
  12. Acad Med. 2024 Mar 07.
    Addressing the Novel Implications of Generative AI for Academic Publishing, Education, and Research.
    Laura Weiss Roberts.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005667
  13. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 Mar 08. 9(1): 3
    A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.
    Ariel Maia Lyons-Warren, Whitley W Aamodt, Kathleen M Pieper, Roy E Strowd.
      BACKGROUND: Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments.METHODS: This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
    RESULTS: Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3-35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7-29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3-4), post = 5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3-5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2-5)).
    CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.
    Keywords:  Journalology; Mentorship; Peer review; Research; Surveys and Questionnaires; Training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00143-x
  14. Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun. 2024 Mar 01. 80(Pt 3): 52
    The unbearable burden of peer review?
    Mark J van Raaij.
      The current situation of scientific manuscript peer review is discussed, both generally and as applied to Acta Crystallographica F - Biological Research Communications.
    Keywords:  peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1107/S2053230X24002024
  15. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2024 Mar-Apr;18(2):pii: S1934-5925(24)00034-0. [Epub ahead of print]18(2): 211-212
    Will ChatGPT take over the manuscript review process?
    Armin Arbab-Zadeh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2024.02.005
  16. Front Res Metr Anal. 2024 ;9 1345553
    Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment.
    Fawad Javed, Dimitrios Michelogiannakis, P Emile Rossouw.
      Bullying and misconduct in the realm of scientific and scholarly publishing have the potential to jeopardize the transparency and integrity of academic discourse. While misconduct issues among authors have been extensively discussed, the role of editors in perpetuating or mitigating such problems has garnered less attention. Scientific publishing serves as the gateway for disseminating innovative research findings globally, and the role of editors, especially Editor/s-in-chief, is pivotal in safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. Editor bullying and misconduct involve behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise research integrity, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. These actions may manifest as biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, or the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. To address these issues, preventive and therapeutic approaches are suggested, including enhancing awareness, recognizing and mitigating exacerbating factors, and upholding professionalism. Moreover, the importance of a conflict-of-interest declaration for editors is highlighted to ensure transparency and integrity in the editorial process. The present mini-review aims to shed light on editor bullying, illuminating its gravity and the urgency to address these issues within the academic publishing domain/s. This review underscores the more subtle, yet equally significant, issue of professional misconduct in the editorial realm of scientific journals.
    Keywords:  academic bullying; editor; ethics; harassment; intimidation; peer-review; personal criticism; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1345553
  17. Eur Radiol. 2024 Mar 07.
    Of editorial processes, AI models, and medical literature: the Magnetic Resonance Audiometry experiment.
    Sirio Cocozza, Giuseppe Palma.
      The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of medical research is unquestionable. Nevertheless, the scientific community has raised several concerns about a possible fraudulent use of these tools that might be used to generate inaccurate or, in extreme cases, erroneous messages that could find their way into the literature. In this experiment, we asked a generative AI program to write a technical report on a non-existing Magnetic Resonance Imaging technique called Magnetic Resonance Audiometry, receiving in return a full seemingly technically sound report, substantiated by equations and references. We have submitted this report to an international peer-reviewed indexed journal, passing the first round of review with only minor changes requested. With this experiment, we showed that the current peer-review system, already burdened by the overwhelming increase in number of publications, might be not ready to also handle the explosion of these techniques, showing the urgent need for the entire community to address both the issue of generative AI in scientific literature and probably a more profound discussion on the entire peer-review process. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Generative AI models are shown to be able to create a full manuscript without any human intervention that can survive peer-review. Given the explosion of these techniques, a profound discussion on the entire peer-review process by the scientific community is mandatory. KEY POINTS: • The scientific community has raised several concerns about a possible fraudulent use of AI in scientific literature. • We asked a generative AI program to write a technical report on a non-existing technique, receiving in return a full technically sound report, substantiated by equations and references, that passed peer-review. • This experiment showed that the current peer-review system might be not ready to handle the explosion of generative AI techniques, advising for a profound discussion on the entire peer-review process.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Bibliometrics; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Peer-review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10668-w
  18. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Mar 08. pii: bmjebm-2023-112695. [Epub ahead of print]
    CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports.
    Mengshu Wang, Xufei Luo, Xiaojuan Xiao, Linlin Zhang, Qi Wang, Shiyu Wang, Ximing Wang, Huadan Xue, Longjiang Zhang, Yaolong Chen, Junqiang Lei, Tomaž Štupnik, Marco Scarci, Alfonso Fiorelli, Tanel Laisaar, Robert Fruscio, Hussein Elkhayat, Nuria M Novoa, Fabio Davoli, Ryuichi Waseda, Janne Estill, Susan L Norris, David S Riley, Jinhui Tian.
      Despite the increasing number of radiological case reports, the majority lack a standardised methodology of writing and reporting. We therefore develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports based on the CAse REport (CARE) statement. We established a multidisciplinary group of experts, comprising 40 radiologists, methodologists, journal editors and researchers, to develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports according to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network. The Delphi panel was requested to evaluate the significance of a list of elements for potential inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. By reviewing the reporting guidelines and through discussion, we initially drafted 46 potential items. Following a Delphi survey and discussion, the final CARE-radiology checklist is comprised of 38 items in 16 domains. CARE-radiology is a comprehensive reporting guideline for radiological case reports developed using a rigorous methodology. We hope that compliance with CARE-radiology will help in the future to improve the completeness and quality of case reports in radiology.
    Keywords:  Diagnosis; Methods; Radiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112695
  19. F1000Res. 2023 ;12 1483
    Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updated Information for Authors.
    Martin Héroux, Joanna Diong, Elizabeth Bye, Georgia Fisher, Lucy Robertson, Annie Butler, Simon Gandevia.
      Sound reporting of research results is fundamental to good science. Unfortunately, poor reporting is common and does not improve with editorial educational strategies. We investigated whether publicly highlighting poor reporting at a journal can lead to improved reporting practices. We also investigated whether reporting practices that are required or strongly encouraged in journal Information for Authors are enforced by journal editors and staff. A 2016 audit highlighted poor reporting practices in the Journal of Neurophysiology. In August 2016 and 2018, the American Physiological Society updated the Information for Authors, which included the introduction of several required or strongly encouraged reporting practices. We audited Journal of Neurophysiology papers published in 2019 and 2020 (downloaded through the library of the University of New South Wales) on reporting items selected from the 2016 audit, the newly introduced reporting practices, and items from previous audits. Summary statistics (means, counts) were used to summarize audit results. In total, 580 papers were audited. Compared to results from the 2016 audit, several reporting practices remained unchanged or worsened. For example, 60% of papers erroneously reported standard errors of the mean, 23% of papers included undefined measures of variability, 40% of papers failed to define a statistical threshold for their tests, and when present, 64% of papers with p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 misinterpreted them as statistical trends. As for the newly introduced reporting practices, required practices were consistently adhered to by 34 to 37% of papers, while strongly encouraged practices were consistently adhered to by 9 to 26% of papers. Adherence to the other audited reporting practices was comparable to our previous audits. Publicly highlighting poor reporting practices did little to improve research reporting. Similarly, requiring or strongly encouraging reporting practices was only partly effective. Although the present audit focused on a single journal, this is likely not an isolated case. Stronger, more strategic measures are required to improve poor research reporting.
    Keywords:  Meta-research; reproducibility; research quality; scientific reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142841.1
  20. BMJ. 2024 Mar 05. 384 q324
    Mandatory data and code sharing for research published by The BMJ.
    Elizabeth Loder, Helen Macdonald, Theodora Bloom, Kamran Abbasi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q324
  21. Subst Use. 2024 Jan-Dec;18:18 11782218231222908
    What's in a Name? Destigmatizing Language Regarding People Who Use Alcohol or Drugs in Publications and Journal Title.
    Gregory L Stuart, Susan E Ramsey.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/11782218231222908
  22. J Med Toxicol. 2024 Mar 06.
    Navigating a Startup Journey: The Journal of Medical Toxicology.
    Christian Tomaszewski.
      
    Keywords:  Journal; PubMed; Publishing; Startup; Toxicology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-024-01002-3
  23. J Sch Psychol. 2024 Apr;pii: S0022-4405(24)00014-1. [Epub ahead of print]103 101294
    Registered reports and replications: An ongoing Journal of School Psychology initiative.
    Jeffery P Braden.
      Recent psychological research suggests that many published studies cannot be replicated (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015). The inability to replicate results suggests that there are influences and biases in the publication process that encourage publication of unusual-rather than representative-results, and that also discourage independent replication of published studies. A brief discussion of the ways in which publication bias and professional incentives may distort the research literature in school psychology is contrasted against the importance of replications and preregistration of research (i.e., registered reports) as self-correcting mechanisms for research in school psychology. The limitations of current practices, coupled with the importance of registered reports and replications as self-correcting mechanisms, provide the context for this ongoing initiative in the Journal of School Psychology. Processes for manuscript submission, review, and publication are presented to encourage researchers to preregister studies and submit replications for publication.
    Keywords:  Registered reports; Replications; Report preregistration; School psychology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101294
  24. J Cell Physiol. 2024 Mar 08.
    Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning.
    Jazmine Benjamin, Celestine N Wanjalla, Jennifer A Gaddy, Annet Kirabo, Edith M Williams, Antentor Hinton.
      A popular preprint server, bioRxiv, is important as a tool for increased visibility for life science research. If used properly, however, bioRxiv can also be an important tool for training, as it may expose trainees (degree-seeking students undertaking research or internships directly related to their field of study) to the peer review process. Here, we offer a comprehensive guide to using bioRxiv as a training tool, as well as offer suggestions for improvements in bioRxiv, including confusion that may be caused by bioRxiv articles appearing on PubMed.
    Keywords:  PubMed; STEM; bioRxiv; mentoring; preprint; training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.31234
  25. Int J Older People Nurs. 2024 Mar;19(2): e12607
    Anchoring our science with keywords.
    Sarah H Kagan.
      
    Keywords:  electronic publications; gerontologic nursing; information science; keywords; systematic review; writing for publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12607
  26. Nature. 2024 Mar;627(8002): 7-8
    Nature publishes too few papers from women researchers - that must change.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Lab life; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00640-5
  27. Neuroscience. 2024 Mar 04. pii: S0306-4522(24)00096-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    The landscape of publishing in Neuroscience: Honouring our scientific heritage and shaping the future of research.
    Francesca Cirulli, Sarah J Spencer, Chen Zhang.
      The landscape of scientific publishing has changed considerably in the few short decades since the three of us first engaged in neuroscience. Back then, articles for reference had to be sourced at the actual library (you know, the building with the books). Some of you may remember going to the library to manually check the weekly "Current Contents", which reported title pages from several hundred journals. Our very first papers were carefully printed in triplicate on heavy paper and posted off for review. And woe betide if there was a smudge on your photomicrograph - you'd have to wait 12 days for a new version to be captured and sent away to the developer to be printed.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2024.02.032
  28. Nature. 2024 Mar 08.
    Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star's physics lab.
    Dan Garisto.
      
    Keywords:  Chemistry; Materials science; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00716-2
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒03‒10 at 5:42.