bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒04‒07
eighteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Gates foundation places bold bet on preprints.
  2. Will the Gates Foundation's preprint-centric policy help open access?
  3. How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews.
  4. In Context: AI Will Write Your Paper: The Very Different Future of Research and Scientific Writing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
  5. Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Publication.
  6. Artificial intelligence in scientific peer review.
  7. ChatGPT's Ability to Reverse "Tortured Phrases" Into Standardized English and Scientific Jargon: Relevance to Nurse Educators and Researchers.
  8. Navigating the Seas of Publications in A Medical Journal: The Role of an Editor.
  9. Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature.
  10. Assessment of transparency indicators in space medicine.
  11. Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience.
  12. Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration.
  13. Revisiting, Rewriting, Reexperiencing: Clinical Writing Today.
  14. Readership Awareness Series - Paper 11: Copyright Licensing for Scientific Publications.
  15. Deficient editorial practices, perceived quality, and expedient scholarly publishing in a developing nation.
  16. Person- and identity-first language in autism research: A systematic analysis of abstracts from 11 autism journals.
  17. Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?
  18. Breaking down barriers: promoting journals beyond the page with open access journal clubs.
  1. Science. 2024 Apr 05. 384(6691): 18
    Gates foundation places bold bet on preprints.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Funder to mandate preprints and no longer pay open-access publishing fees for grantees.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp6029
  2. Nature. 2024 Apr 04.
    Will the Gates Foundation's preprint-centric policy help open access?
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00996-8
  3. Nature. 2024 Mar 28.
    How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews.
    Sumeet Kulkarni.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00875-2
  4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024 Mar 26. pii: S0890-8567(24)00175-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    In Context: AI Will Write Your Paper: The Very Different Future of Research and Scientific Writing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
    Arash Javanbakht.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2024.03.013
  5. JSLS. 2024 Jan-Mar;28(1):pii: e2024.00006. [Epub ahead of print]28(1):
    Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Publication.
    Michael S Kavic, Raymond J Lanzafame.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00006
  6. J World Fed Orthod. 2024 Apr;pii: S2212-4438(24)00017-1. [Epub ahead of print]13(2): 55-56
    Artificial intelligence in scientific peer review.
    Vinod Krishnan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.004
  7. Nurse Educ. 2024 Apr 02.
    ChatGPT's Ability to Reverse "Tortured Phrases" Into Standardized English and Scientific Jargon: Relevance to Nurse Educators and Researchers.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Panagiotis Tsigaris.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001636
  8. Cureus. 2024 Feb;16(2): e55233
    Navigating the Seas of Publications in A Medical Journal: The Role of an Editor.
    Shweta Tanwar.
      The world of scientific publishing is a dynamic ecosystem where groundbreaking research and discoveries find their way into the public domain. Scientific journals play a pivotal role in disseminating new knowledge, shaping the healthcare landscape, and influencing clinical practice. Behind the scenes, editors serve as gatekeepers, meticulously reviewing and selecting articles to ensure the highest standards of quality and relevance. This article offers insights into the role of editors regarding publications in medical journals, shedding light on the challenges, responsibilities, and evolving trends in this crucial process.
    Keywords:  academic editor; biomedical journals; publication ethics; research; scientific publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.55233
  9. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Apr 03.
    Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature.
    Patrick F W Chien, Mohamad A Elsuity, Mosab M Rashwan, María Núñez-Núñez, Khalid S Khan, Javier Zamora-Romero, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Mohamed Fawzy.
      BACKGROUND: Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.OBJECTIVES: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.
    SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.
    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.
    MAIN RESULTS: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.
    CONCLUSIONS: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.
    Keywords:  post‐publication; randomized clinical trial; research integrity; scoping review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15488
  10. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(4): e0300701
    Assessment of transparency indicators in space medicine.
    Rosa Katia Bellomo, Emmanuel A Zavalis, John P A Ioannidis.
      Space medicine is a vital discipline with often time-intensive and costly projects and constrained opportunities for studying various elements such as space missions, astronauts, and simulated environments. Moreover, private interests gain increasing influence in this discipline. In scientific disciplines with these features, transparent and rigorous methods are essential. Here, we undertook an evaluation of transparency indicators in publications within the field of space medicine. A meta-epidemiological assessment of PubMed Central Open Access (PMC OA) eligible articles within the field of space medicine was performed for prevalence of code sharing, data sharing, pre-registration, conflicts of interest, and funding. Text mining was performed with the rtransparent text mining algorithms with manual validation of 200 random articles to obtain corrected estimates. Across 1215 included articles, 39 (3%) shared code, 258 (21%) shared data, 10 (1%) were registered, 110 (90%) contained a conflict-of-interest statement, and 1141 (93%) included a funding statement. After manual validation, the corrected estimates for code sharing, data sharing, and registration were 5%, 27%, and 1%, respectively. Data sharing was 32% when limited to original articles and highest in space/parabolic flights (46%). Overall, across space medicine we observed modest rates of data sharing, rare sharing of code and almost non-existent protocol registration. Enhancing transparency in space medicine research is imperative for safeguarding its scientific rigor and reproducibility.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300701
  11. Eur J Neurosci. 2024 Apr 01.
    Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly.
      When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.
    Keywords:  bibliometric data permanence and security; literature correction; open access; peer review; retractions and withdrawals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16330
  12. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Mar 30. pii: S0003-9993(24)00903-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration.
    Eli Paul, Annes Elfar, Caleb Peters, Caleb Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Matt Vassar.
      OBJECTIVE: To assess reporting guideline and clinical trial registration requirements in rehabilitation journals.DESIGN: We examined rehabilitation journals with five-year impact factors exceeding 1.00 from the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, alongside the 28 journals included in the 2014 rehabilitation and disability quality improvement initiative. Journals outside the traditional rehabilitation scope were excluded.
    SETTING: A publicly-funded academic health center in the United States.
    PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: N/A Main Outcome Measure(s): The proportion of journals requiring/recommending reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration.
    RESULTS: Over 90% (57/63) of journals required/recommended clinical trial reporting guidelines, while 68% (39/57) specified guideline requirements for systematic review/meta-analysis protocols. The 2014 collaborative initiative journals demonstrated higher rates of requiring/recommending reporting guidelines for clinical trials (24/26; 92.3%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (23/26; 88.5%), observational studies in epidemiology (22/25; 88%), and diagnostic accuracy studies (20/24; 83.3%). Conversely, the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals displayed higher rates for the remaining study designs. Overall, 52/63 (82.5%) journals required/recommended trial registration. Trial registration policies were comparable, with a slight advantage favoring the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals.
    CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation journals variably promoted reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. Common study designs like clinical trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and diagnostic accuracy studies demonstrated robust requirement/recommendation rates, while less common designs like economic evaluations and animal research had suboptimal rates. Journals can enhance reporting guideline use and trial registration by directing authors to the EQUATOR Network, requiring adherence to registration and reporting standards, and clarifying language in author instructions.
    Keywords:  Evidence-Based Practice; Observational Study; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2024.03.011
  13. Psychoanal Q. 2024 ;93(1): 3-12
    Revisiting, Rewriting, Reexperiencing: Clinical Writing Today.
    Daria Colombo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00332828.2024.2319015
  14. Semin Ophthalmol. 2024 Apr 03. 1-2
    Readership Awareness Series - Paper 11: Copyright Licensing for Scientific Publications.
    Mohammad Javed Ali, Ali Djalilian.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2024.2338045
  15. F1000Res. 2023 ;12 1173
    Deficient editorial practices, perceived quality, and expedient scholarly publishing in a developing nation.
    Amin Bredan, Osama Tashani, Omran Bakoush.
      Background: There is increasing concern about the quality, integrity, and accessibility to research published in the developing world. This study explores the editorial practices and editors' perspectives to gain insight into the standard of scholarly publishing in Libya.Methods: Between 21 st January and 12 th February, 2022, the editors-in-chief (EC) of Libyan academic journals were invited to complete a questionnaire on editorial practices, degree of satisfaction with submitted and published manuscripts, review processes, and journal performance, as well as challenges facing the journals. Journal websites were examined for quality, and indexation coverage and citations were assessed. We examined the number of citations in Google Scholar for all 2019 articles published in each journal. Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively summarize the data and thematic analysis was used for the narrative text.
    Results: 48 EC completed the questionnaire. The EC was affiliated with the institution that owns the journal in 92% of cases. Most EC (83%) were satisfied with the peer-review quality, 69% believed that most of their published papers add new ideas or findings, and 96% were satisfied with their journal's performance. However, despite the high degree of satisfaction, only one journal was indexed in Web of Science or Scopus and only 17% of the journals were indexed in Google Scholar. A qualitative assessment of journal websites revealed shortcomings in publishing practices in a large proportion of the journals.
    Conclusions: The discordance between the satisfaction of the journal editors and the journal quality indicators points to a break in the quality system of Libyan academic publishing. Similar expedient publishing practices might exist in other countries as well. A comprehensive action plan led by academic institutions to enforce high standards for scholarly publishing is needed to advance research and high-quality scholarly publications in developing countries.
    Keywords:  Citation counts; Journal affiliation; scholarly publishing; Science editors; Libya
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134583.3
  16. Autism. 2024 Apr 03. 13623613241241202
    Person- and identity-first language in autism research: A systematic analysis of abstracts from 11 autism journals.
    Matthew Carl Zajic, Juliette Gudknecht.
      LAY ABSTRACT: There are many ways to refer to an individual who is on the autism spectrum. A recommended approach has been to use person-first language (PFL), such as "person with autism." A different approach is to use identity-first language (IFL), such as "autistic person." Recent studies focused on different groups of people (e.g. autistic self-advocates, parents, and practitioners) show that some groups prefer PFL (practitioners) while others prefer IFL (autistic self-advocates). However, less is known about how researchers use PFL and IFL in academic writing (e.g. studies published in scientific journals) involving autistic research participants. Our study examined 12,962 journal abstracts (short summaries of scientific articles) from 11 academic journals that publish autism research findings. We wanted to know (a) about the use of PFL and IFL across abstracts, and (b) how PFL and IFL use has changed annually over time. We examined data for all journals individually and grouped together. Our findings showed that journal abstracts generally use PFL (65%) with some using either IFL (16%) or both PFL and IFL (20%). However, journals varied, with some showing a clear majority for PFL and a couple for IFL. Examining trends over time across journals showed that while PFL appeared to be the majority for most journals, IFL has steadily increased in the recent few years. Our study helps us understand how autism researchers write about autistic individuals and offers implications for helping researchers intentionally make choices about the language used in their autism research studies.
    Keywords:  autism; identity-first language; person-first language; scholarly writing; systematic analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241241202
  17. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2024 Jan-Dec;11:11 23821205241242217
    Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?
    Owen W Tomlinson.
      The process of getting one's work published is a major milestone for many in their early academic and clinical careers. However, this process can be confusing and overwhelming for many who have yet to publish themselves. There are differing motivators for publishing work in our early career stages, alongside considerations, such as what we publish, where we decide to submit work, and how we logistically undertake the submission process. This commentary provides a holistic overview for the early career medical educator, empowering them to take the bold steps toward "getting published."
    Keywords:  early career; process; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241242217
  18. BJPsych Bull. 2024 Apr 01. 1-4
    Breaking down barriers: promoting journals beyond the page with open access journal clubs.
    Angharad N de Cates, Donncha Mullin, Lucy Stirland, Mariana Pinto da Costa, Derek Tracy.
      In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJPsych) established a series of free online teaching sessions called BJPsych Journal Clubs. Their educational purpose is two-fold: (a) to provide junior psychiatrists with a friendly but large-scale platform to evaluate and critically appraise recent articles published in the BJPsych and (b) to present new research findings in an open and accessible manner. In this paper, we discuss our framework, the challenges we encountered, how the original model is evolving based on feedback from trainees, and tips for success when delivering international online journal clubs.
    Keywords:  Education and training; ethics; medical technology; patient/carer involvement; statistical methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2024.3
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒04‒07 at 5:33.