bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒05‒19
seventeen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 May 21. 121(21): e2322462121
      While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists.
    Keywords:  citation; disruption; productivity; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322462121
  2. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(5): e0303262
      In recent years, concern has grown about the inappropriate application and interpretation of P values, especially the use of P<0.05 to denote "statistical significance" and the practice of P-hacking to produce results below this threshold and selectively reporting these in publications. Such behavior is said to be a major contributor to the large number of false and non-reproducible discoveries found in academic journals. In response, it has been proposed that the threshold for statistical significance be changed from 0.05 to 0.005. The aim of the current study was to use an evolutionary agent-based model comprised of researchers who test hypotheses and strive to increase their publication rates in order to explore the impact of a 0.005 P value threshold on P-hacking and published false positive rates. Three scenarios were examined, one in which researchers tested a single hypothesis, one in which they tested multiple hypotheses using a P<0.05 threshold, and one in which they tested multiple hypotheses using a P<0.005 threshold. Effects sizes were varied across models and output assessed in terms of researcher effort, number of hypotheses tested and number of publications, and the published false positive rate. The results supported the view that a more stringent P value threshold can serve to reduce the rate of published false positive results. Researchers still engaged in P-hacking with the new threshold, but the effort they expended increased substantially and their overall productivity was reduced, resulting in a decline in the published false positive rate. Compared to other proposed interventions to improve the academic publishing system, changing the P value threshold has the advantage of being relatively easy to implement and could be monitored and enforced with minimal effort by journal editors and peer reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303262
  3. Sci Prog. 2024 Apr-Jun;107(2):107(2): 368504241253693
      Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.
    Keywords:  Animal use alternatives; bias mitigation; disease models; peer review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504241253693
  4. Health Aff Sch. 2024 May;2(5): qxae058
      Conducting high-quality peer review of scientific manuscripts has become increasingly challenging. The substantial increase in the number of manuscripts, lack of a sufficient number of peer-reviewers, and questions related to effectiveness, fairness, and efficiency, require a different approach. Large-language models, 1 form of artificial intelligence (AI), have emerged as a new approach to help resolve many of the issues facing contemporary medicine and science. We believe AI should be used to assist in the triaging of manuscripts submitted for peer-review publication.
    Keywords:  AI; peer review; scientific communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae058
  5. J Med Ethics. 2024 May 15. pii: jme-2024-109912. [Epub ahead of print]
      The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) maintains that AIs (artificial intelligences) cannot be authors of academic papers, because they are unable to take responsibility for them. COPE appears to have the answerability sense of responsibility in mind. It is true that AIs cannot be answerable for papers, but responsibility in this sense is not required for authorship in the sciences. I suggest that ethics will be forced to follow suit in dropping responsibility as a criterion for authorship or rethinking its role. I put forward three options for authorship: dropping responsibility as a criterion for authorship, retaining it and excluding AIs, but at the cost of substantial revision of our practices, or requiring only local responsibility for an intellectual contribution.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Ethics- Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-109912
  6. Access Microbiol. 2024 ;6(4): 000792
      Scientists face challenges in publishing negative results, because most scientific journals are biassed in accepting positive and novel findings. Despite their importance, negative results often go unpublished, leading to duplication of efforts, biassed meta-analyses, and ethical concerns regarding animal and human studies. In this light, the initiative by Access Microbiology to collect and publish negative results in the field of microbiology is a very important and valuable contribution towards unbiassed science.
    Keywords:  negative outcomes; null results; open science; reproducibility; science integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000792
  7. Indian J Med Ethics. 2024 Apr-Jun;IX(2):IX(2): 147-148
      The expression "Publish or perish," first appeared in 1942. It signified the rising importance of publication as a means to obtain research funds and establish a secure academic career. The expression is still highly relevant, but increasingly problematic. Perhaps it should be revised to read "Publish and Perish". We have reached a point where researchers, especially in non-English speaking countries, are no longer able to afford to publish their research. There seems little point in undertaking research if we can no longer disseminate or, indeed, apply the wisdom gained from it.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.017
  8. Arch Plast Surg. 2024 May;51(3): 265-267
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2283-2269
  9. Eur J Intern Med. 2024 May 13. pii: S0953-6205(24)00191-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  History of medicine; Immunology; Predatory journals; Publishing; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2024.05.004
  10. Eur Radiol Exp. 2024 May 14. 8(1): 72
      Overall quality of radiomics research has been reported as low in literature, which constitutes a major challenge to improve. Consistent, transparent, and accurate reporting is critical, which can be accomplished with systematic use of reporting guidelines. The CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR) was previously developed to assist authors in reporting their radiomic research and to assist reviewers in their evaluation. To take full advantage of CLEAR, further explanation and elaboration of each item, as well as literature examples, may be useful. The main goal of this work, Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3), is to improve CLEAR's usability and dissemination. In this international collaborative effort, members of the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics-Radiomics Auditing Group searched radiomics literature to identify representative reporting examples for each CLEAR item. At least two examples, demonstrating optimal reporting, were presented for each item. All examples were selected from open-access articles, allowing users to easily consult the corresponding full-text articles. In addition to these, each CLEAR item's explanation was further expanded and elaborated. For easier access, the resulting document is available at https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/ . As a complementary effort to CLEAR, we anticipate that this initiative will assist authors in reporting their radiomics research with greater ease and transparency, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing manuscripts.Relevance statement Along with the original CLEAR checklist, CLEAR-E3 is expected to provide a more in-depth understanding of the CLEAR items, as well as concrete examples for reporting and evaluating radiomic research.Key points• As a complementary effort to CLEAR, this international collaborative effort aims to assist authors in reporting their radiomics research, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing radiomics manuscripts.• Based on positive examples from the literature selected by the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group, each CLEAR item explanation was further elaborated in CLEAR-E3.• The resulting explanation and elaboration document with examples can be accessed at  https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/ .
    Keywords:  Checklist; Guideline; Machine learning; Radiomics; Reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00471-z
  11. Br J Anaesth. 2024 May 13. pii: S0007-0912(24)00210-1. [Epub ahead of print]
      Throughout its 100-yr history, a key ambition of the British Journal of Anaesthesia has been to foster our academic community by addressing the needs of individuals in the early stages of their independent clinical and research careers. Longitudinal mentoring and peer networking are critical for establishing a community of like-minded peers and mentor-advisors required to navigate the challenges of academic medicine. In 2019, the Journal launched an Editorial Fellowship scheme, aimed at comprehensively demystifying the process of peer review, editing, and publishing through guided mentorship and experiential learning.
    Keywords:  academic medicine; anaesthesiology; biomedical publishing; diversity; mentor; professional development; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.041
  12. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2024 Jun;134(6): 767-769
      
    Keywords:  diversity; gender composition; journal impact; representation; visibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.14019