bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–05–05
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Account Res. 2024 May 01. 1-3
      'Write your paper on the motherland' is an influential Chinese slogan encouraging researchers to focus on domestic issues and prioritize local applications of their work, though interpretations differ. The 2024 'International Journal Early Warning List' update sparked renewed debate over the slogan's meaning. This letter argues that misinterpreting this slogan as merely promoting domestic journal submissions could lead to a more conservative submission behavior and a more closed academic system. This reflects a common challenge among non-English-speaking countries to balance international reach with local contributions in publications.
    Keywords:  Domestic contribution; International reach; Nationalism in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2347398
  2. Science. 2024 May 03. 384(6695): 496-497
      Thomas Südhof's lab is facing scrutiny after admitting mistakes in 15 publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1774
  3. Curr Med Res Opin. 2024 May 03. 1-9
      Preprints are non-peer-reviewed and publicly available articles for open and transparent research communication. Preprint servers host the submission of such manuscripts, and despite the presence of established preprint servers, their numbers have continued to rise in recent times. A steep increasing pattern in posted preprints and their accommodating servers has been observed over the last decade. In this article, we explored the global trends in the preprint adoption and its involvement in promoting open and transparent research findings across various domains. We further emphasized the importance of preprinting, highlighting its significant impact during the pandemic through effective information sharing, and advocating for its broader integration in scholarly communication.
    Keywords:  Open research; Preprint; Preprint servers; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2351144
  4. Account Res. 2024 May 02. 1-21
      Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.
    Keywords:  Epistemic responsibility; research integrity; research misconduct; room-temperature superconductor; social responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2345714
  5. Heliyon. 2024 Apr 15. 10(7): e28605
      This study investigated the perceptions and factors that researchers had about Open Access (OA) publishing, specifically how it affected their decision to publish or not. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory by Rogers served as the study's main guide, and 15 research scientists from Ghana's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research's Crop Research Institute provided qualitative data for the study through semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist research paradigm. Convenience sampling was used to choose the participants, and thematic analysis was used to analyse and present the research results in themes. The study's conclusions showed that all of the participants benefited from OA and that they were all aware of its application for disseminating scientific information. High Article Processing Charges (APC) and credibility issues were also mentioned in the study as significant obstacles to using OA for the dissemination of scientific information. The study suggests that in order for scientists to use Open Access (OA) for the sharing of scientific information, they must be given the means to distinguish trustworthy journals from predatory ones.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Diffusion of innovation theory; Dissemination; Open access; Predatory
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28605
  6. Psychiatr Serv. 2024 May 02. appips20240026
      This column details some of the ways in which psychiatric survivors or those writing about their lived experience with mental illness are disadvantaged and devalued in mainstream academic publishing. This devaluation stems from structural issues involving various organizations, persons, and practices. Breaking the constraints of this structure is extremely difficult, but the author proposes some ways of doing so.
    Keywords:  Lived experience; Patient rights; Scholarly publishing; Sociopolitical Issues
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240026
  7. Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Apr 29.
      
    Keywords:  Asia; China; Fake peer review; Misconduct; Paper mill; Research; Researcher; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03616-5
  8. J Cancer Res Ther. 2024 Apr 01. 20(2): 592-598
       OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction.
    METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed.
    RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%).
    CONCLUSION: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1627_23
  9. Nature. 2024 May 01.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Peer review; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01312-0
  10. J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:15 21501319241252235
      Journal editors depend on peer reviewers to make decisions about submitted manuscripts. These reviewers help evaluate the methods, the results, the discussion of the results, and the overall organization and presentation of the manuscript. In addition, reviewers can help identify important mistakes and possible misconduct. Editors frequently have difficulty obtaining enough peer reviews which are submitted in a timely manner. This increases the workload of editors and journal managers and potentially delays the publication of clinical and research studies. This commentary discusses of the importance of peer reviews and make suggestions which potentially can increase the participation of academic faculty and researchers in this important activity.
    Keywords:  institutional responsibilities; medical publication; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241252235
  11. Account Res. 2024 May 01. 1-11
      Background: Following the 2023 surge in popularity of large language models like ChatGPT, significant ethical discussions emerged regarding their role in academic authorship. Notable ethics organizations, including the ICMJE and COPE, alongside leading publishers, have instituted ethics clauses explicitly stating that such models do not meet the criteria for authorship due to accountability issues.Objective: This study aims to assess the prevalence and ethical implications of listing ChatGPT as an author on academic papers, in violation of existing ethical guidelines set by the ICMJE and COPE.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus to identify instances where ChatGPT was credited as an author, co-author, or group author.Results: Our search identified 14 papers featuring ChatGPT in such roles. In four of those papers, ChatGPT was listed as an "author" alongside the journal's editor or editor-in-chief. Several of the ChatGPT-authored papers have accrued dozens, even hundreds of citations according to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.Discussion: The inclusion of ChatGPT as an author on these papers raises critical questions about the definition of authorship and the accountability mechanisms in place for content produced by artificial intelligence. Despite the ethical guidelines, the widespread citation of these papers suggests a disconnect between ethical policy and academic practice.Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for corrective measures to address these discrepancies. Immediate review and amendment of the listed papers is advised, highlighting a significant oversight in the enforcement of ethical standards in academic publishing.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); authorship principles; ethics; responsibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2345713
  12. Med Clin (Barc). 2024 Apr 27. pii: S0025-7753(24)00185-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2024.01.039
  13. J Exp Biol. 2024 May 01. pii: jeb247383. [Epub ahead of print]227(9):
      The ease with which scientific data, particularly certain types of raw data in experimental biology, can be fabricated without trace begs urgent attention. This is thought to be a widespread problem across the academic world, where published results are the major currency, incentivizing publication of (usually positive) results at the cost of lax scientific rigor and even fraudulent data. Although solutions to improve data sharing and methodological transparency are increasingly being implemented, the inability to detect dishonesty within raw data remains an inherent flaw in the way in which we judge research. We therefore propose that one solution would be the development of a non-modifiable raw data format that could be published alongside scientific results; a format that would enable data authentication from the earliest stages of experimental data collection. A further extension of this tool could allow changes to the initial original version to be tracked, so every reviewer and reader could follow the logical footsteps of the author and detect unintentional errors or intentional manipulations of the data. Were such a tool to be developed, we would not advocate its use as a prerequisite for journal submission; rather, we envisage that authors would be given the option to provide such authentication. Only authors who did not manipulate or fabricate their data can provide the original data without risking discovery, so the mere choice to do so already increases their credibility (much like 'honest signaling' in animals). We strongly believe that such a tool would enhance data honesty and encourage more reliable science.
    Keywords:  Best practice; Data integrity; Data manipulation; Fraud; Reproducibility; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.247383
  14. Curr Med Res Opin. 2024 May 03. 1-12
      According to its own description, the biomedical meta-database PubMed exists "with the aim of improving health-both globally and personally." Unfortunately, PubMed contains an increasing amount of low-quality research that may detract from this goal. Currently, PubMed warns its users and protects itself from such problems with a disclaimer stating that the presence of any article, book, or document in PubMed does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, its contents by the NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government. However, we are critical of a "disclaimer-only" stance and encourage PubMed to take further action against low-quality research being found and indexed in its database, and thus available for use. To address this problem, we offer two lines of reasoning to argue that PubMed should not function merely as a passive index of health-related research. Instead, we first argue that only trustworthy published research is able to further PubMed's goal of health improvement. Secondly, on the basis of surveys, we argue that researchers place a high level of trust in articles that are referenced in this meta-database. We cannot expect any one set of actors to ensure trustworthy content on PubMed, which requires collective responsibility among authors, peer reviewers, editors, and indexers alike. Instead, we propose a curation-based model that incorporates three mechanisms of collaborative content curation: open expert feedback on indexed content, journal auditing, and constant transparent reassessment of indexed entities.
    Keywords:  accountability; content curation; errors; publishing quality; responsibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2350612
  15. J Med Internet Res. 2024 May 02. 26 e52508
      The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors' application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; diagnostic models; editorial policy; machine learning; predictive models; prognostic models; reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/52508
  16. Med Sci Educ. 2024 Apr;34(2): 439-444
      The world of publication can seem intimidating and closed to the newcomer. How then does one even begin to get a foot in the door? In this paper, the authors draw from the literature and their recent lived experience as editorial interns to consider this challenge under the theme of access, and how it overlaps with the various components of academic publication. The main three components of the publication 'machine' are discussed in this article, authoring, reviewing, and editing. These are preceded by the first, and arguably foundational, interaction with academic journal publishing-reading. Without reading articles across different journals, and even in different disciplines, understanding the breadth of scholarship and its purpose is impossible. The subsequent components of authoring, reviewing, and editing, which are all enhanced by ongoing familiarity with current literature through further reading, are considered in further detail in the remainder of this article, with practical advice provided as to how to gain access and experience in each of these areas, for example, writing non-research article manuscripts, engaging in collaborative peer review, and applying for editorial opportunities (with perseverance) when the opportunity presents itself. Medical education publication can seem daunting and closed to entry-level academics. This article is written to dispel this view, and challenges the notion that the world of publication is reserved for experts only. On the contrary, newcomers to the field are essential for academic publications to retain relevance, dynamism, and innovation particularly in the face of the changing landscape of medical education.
    Keywords:  Academic Journal; Academic Writing; Authorship; Editing; Manuscript; Peer-review; Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01961-2
  17. Natl Med J India. 2023 Mar-Apr;36(2):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_567_21. [Epub ahead of print]36(2): 104-108
      Background . We assessed the balance between the number of publications required by medical teachers and the publication space available in the Indian medical journals. Methods . The Medical Council of India (MCI) website, its guidelines and documents were searched and we extracted data on the number of medical colleges, undergraduate and postgraduate seats and faculty requirement. The required number of assistant professors and associate professors was calculated. The publication requirements were estimated according to MCI's February 2020 guidelines. A publication which satisfied the above guidelines for promotion was counted as 'eligible publication'. Indian medical journals indexed in any of the MCI-permitted databases were identified, and the number of eligible articles in them in 2019 was counted. Results . India has a total of 79 798 MBBS seats, 33 025 postgraduate seats and 4231 superspecialty seats in MCI-certified medical institutions and to teach them 35 285 assistant professors and 23 116 associate professors are required. Assuming that each publication could serve a maximum of 3 teachers, we will need approximately 50 696 eligible publications in the next 7 years. A search of applicable databases, identified 162 unique Indian medical journals of which 79 were indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central. Among the remaining 63 were indexed in DOAJ, 14 in EMBASE, 3 in Scopus and 3 were indexed only in WOSSCIE. These journals cumulatively published a total of 8508 eligible publications in 2019. Conclusion . The publication space in Indian medical journals is limited, thus there is a need to have a national medical repository such as MedRxiv to prevent publication in predatory journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_567_21
  18. Geohealth. 2024 May;8(5): e2024GH001053
      Early career researchers often asked me: how I became the editor-in-chief, what editors, associate editors, and editors do, why I wanted to become an editor, how much time an editor committed, would I rather spend more time on my research and publish another paper or my personal life? All of these questions make sense. When I started as an assistant professor nearly 20 years ago, I did not plan to become an editor; I wanted to do my research and teach to achieve tenure. Sound familiar? Fortunately, I was gradually pulled into the publishing process not as an author but as a reviewer, associate editor, and eventually editor-in-chief by several senior colleagues, for whom I am forever grateful. Now, it is my turn to prepare the next generation of editors, the backbone of science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GH001053
  19. Neurol India. 2024 Mar 01. 72(2): 352-357
       BACKGROUND: Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated.
    OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles.
    METHODS: The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports.
    RESULTS: Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals.
    CONCLUSIONS: Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ni.ni_38_22
  20. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(5): e0302655
       BACKGROUND: Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS).
    METHODS: CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals.
    RESULTS: A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8.
    CONCLUSION: While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302655
  21. Creat Nurs. 2024 Apr 28. 10784535241248067
      This article traces the development of Creative Nursing from its origin in 1981 as a newsletter about Primary Nursing to its current position as a quarterly international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, indexed, themed journal that continues to nurture novice authors, welcome international submissions, review articles that other journals won't consider, and address subjects that many journals avoid. Future directions include content in multiple languages, new author guidelines that invite submissions of research methods papers, moving beyond statistical significance based on p-value thresholds, asking authors to make explicit the implications for knowledge translation in their papers, and thinking creatively about how artificial intelligence can be leveraged for research, education, and practice.
    Keywords:  Creativity; generative artificial intelligence; innovation; interdisciplinary; statistical significance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10784535241248067