bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒09‒01
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find.
  2. Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications.
  3. "Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research.
  4. Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature.
  5. Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies.
  6. AI firms must play fair when they use academic data in training.
  7. The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.
  8. Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.
  9. Peer Reviewer Contributions, Challenges, and Training.
  10. Utilization of the Transparent Peer Review Policy to Train Graduate Pharmacy Students on Scientific Critique.
  11. Diversity of Editorial Boards in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery.
  12. Re: Diversity of Editorial Boards in Podiatric Foot and Ankle Surgery.
  13. Improving the diversity of the PLOS ONE editorial board.
  14. Why Did My Paper Take So Long To Review?
  15. Strategies on Reducing Wordiness to Enhance Readability in Academic Writing.
  16. Pathways to publishing a scientific article: listen to the editor.
  17. Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals.
  18. Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials.
  19. Questionnaire survey for the International Journal of Legal Medicine on the occassion of the 26th triennal meeting of the International Academy of Legal Medicine.
  20. Fixing errors in the PubMed entry of the abstract of an article.
  1. Nature. 2024 Aug 27.
    No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Funding; Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02598-w
  2. Curr Res Physiol. 2024 ;7 100130
    Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications.
    Alicia Mattiazzi, Martin Vila-Petroff.
      Citation bias receives scant attention in discussions of ethics. However, inaccurate citation may lead to significant distortions in scientific understanding. Although ethnical and gender citation disparities have been proposed as critical aspects, there are other contributors to citation distortions, like region-based citation bias, that, although less recognized within the scientific community, are equally important. While the foundations of scientific citation include acknowledging pioneers, giving credit to related work, and providing background reading, other more subjective or even questionable criteria are often used when constructing a reference lists. Here, we discuss the potential causes and ethical concerns of citation bias, emphasizing the role of international- or region-based citation bias as one of the most harmful aspects of this ethical breach. We argue that the international scientific community should be aware of this problem and recognize its consequences, which include hindering the accurate dissemination of science, marginalizing underrepresented voices in academia, and impeding scientific progress. We advocate that scientists should compile their reference lists with the same seriousness and integrity they apply to all other aspects of their research.
    Keywords:  Citation bias; Publication ethics; Reference list
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crphys.2024.100130
  3. Indian J Med Ethics. 2024 Jul-Sep;IX(3):IX(3): 222-227
    "Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research.
    Shubhada Nagarkar.
      The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.025
  4. Nature. 2024 Aug;632(8027): 977-979
    Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature.
    Guillaume Cabanac.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02747-1
  5. Nature. 2024 Aug 28.
    Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies.
    Richard Van Noorden, Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02719-5
  6. Nature. 2024 Aug;632(8027): 953
    AI firms must play fair when they use academic data in training.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Machine learning; Policy; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02757-z
  7. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2024 Sep 01. 28(5): 393-401
    The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.
    Sangzin Ahn.
      Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Medical writing; Scholarly communication; Scientific misconduct; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4196/kjpp.2024.28.5.393
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 26. 39(33): e249
    Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.
    Zafer Kocak.
      The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Ethics in Publishing; Retraction of Publication; Scientific Fraud; Scientific Integrity; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e249
  9. Nurs Res. 2024 Sep-Oct 01;73(5):73(5): 337-338
    Peer Reviewer Contributions, Challenges, and Training.
    Rita H Pickler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000754
  10. Am J Pharm Educ. 2024 Aug 22. pii: S0002-9459(24)10987-4. [Epub ahead of print]88(10): 101268
    Utilization of the Transparent Peer Review Policy to Train Graduate Pharmacy Students on Scientific Critique.
    Raed Ababneh, Ousama Rachid, Ahmed Awaisu, Alaaldin M Alkilany.
      OBJECTIVE: Recognizing the importance of training graduate students in scientific critique and peer review, we introduced an innovative instructional strategy using the transparent peer review policy (TPRP). This study aimed to explore students' feedback and reflection on how published peer review reports influenced their scientific critique skills and thought process.METHODS: We used TPRP-adopting journals' publicly available peer review reports for Master of Science in Pharmacy students, who analyzed real cases, including author submissions, reviewer comments, author rebuttals, editorial decisions, and final publications. A reflection assignment required students to share their insights on the TPRP-adopting journals' review processes and how these influenced their scientific reviewing skills. Qualitative content analysis of the submitted reflections was conducted by two instructors not involved in developing or delivering this aspect of the course.
    RESULTS: Eleven students submitted reflections on their learning experiences through this public-facing peer review process. The analysis revealed that TPRP increased the students' awareness of the peer review process and fundamental principles of scientific critique. Five key themes emerged: understanding research content, inspiring ideas, fostering objectivity, enriching peer review comprehension, and evaluating transparent peer review pros and cons. Students showed a positive attitude toward this pedagogical approach for acquiring the targeted skills.
    CONCLUSION: We utilized peer review reports from TPRP-supporting journals as an educational tool, providing training on the fundamentals of peer review and scientific critique. This study suggests recommending TPRP-supported journal reports as a valuable educational tool for teaching scientific critique and peer review skills among graduate students.
    Keywords:  Educational pedagogy; Qualitative content analysis; Scientific critique skills; Transparent peer review policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.101268
  11. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2024 Sep-Oct;63(5):pii: S1067-2516(24)00097-8. [Epub ahead of print]63(5): 621
    Diversity of Editorial Boards in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery.
    Isana Fils-Aime, Andrew J Meyr.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2024.05.006
  12. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2024 Sep-Oct;63(5):pii: S1067-2516(24)00098-X. [Epub ahead of print]63(5): 622
    Re: Diversity of Editorial Boards in Podiatric Foot and Ankle Surgery.
    Naohiro Shibuya.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2024.05.008
  13. PLoS One. 2024 ;19(8): e0308492
    Improving the diversity of the PLOS ONE editorial board.
    Shein Ei Cho, Emily J Chenette.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308492
  14. J Urol. 2024 Aug 26. 101097JU0000000000004183
    Why Did My Paper Take So Long To Review?
    George Koch, D Robert Siemens.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004183
  15. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 26. 39(33): e240
    Strategies on Reducing Wordiness to Enhance Readability in Academic Writing.
    Takako Kojima, Helena A Popiel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e240
  16. Women Health. 2024 Sep;64(8): 615-616
    Pathways to publishing a scientific article: listen to the editor.
    Márcia Mendonça Carneiro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2024.2397833
  17. Am J Otolaryngol. 2024 Aug 16. pii: S0196-0709(24)00287-4. [Epub ahead of print]45(6): 104501
    Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals.
    Zaneta N Harlianto, Netanja I Harlianto.
      OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals.METHODS: Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures.
    RESULTS: Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors).
    CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.
    Keywords:  Editorial board; Financial conflict of interest; Industry payments; Open payments database
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104501
  18. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Aug 24. 24(1): 185
    Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials.
    Mayara Colpo Prado, Lara Dotto, Bernardo Agostini, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre.
      BACKGROUND: To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry.METHODS: This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty.
    RESULTS: A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability.
    CONCLUSIONS: Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code.
    Keywords:  Dentistry; Meta-research; Randomized controlled trial; Research report
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02316-0
  19. Int J Legal Med. 2024 Aug 28.
    Questionnaire survey for the International Journal of Legal Medicine on the occassion of the 26th triennal meeting of the International Academy of Legal Medicine.
    Andreas Schmeling, Tony Fracasso.
      A questionnaire was prepared in advance of the 26th triennial conference of the International Academy of Legal Medicine (IALM) and sent to 474 email addresses included in the IALM mailing list. The questionnaire addressed three current challenges faced by the International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM): the publication of guidelines and validation studies in the field of legal medicine, the publication ethics of case reports, and the recruitment of new reviewers for the IJLM. The response rate was 20%. The survey results highlight the need for international guidelines in various areas of legal medicine. Some desired guidelines already exist. To provide visibility and knowledge of the existing national guidelines, the IJLM has launched a Topical Collection on Quality Assurance in Legal Medicine. This collection aims to inform readers about country-specific characteristics of legal medicine structures and the existing national guidelines.Around 80% of the participants stated that there are legal or ethical requirements for the publication of forensic case reports or case series. Various options for obtaining consent for publication are discussed. Eighty-six of the 97 participants indicated their willingness to review manuscripts for the IJLM. It is emphasized that the contributions of reviewers should be duly recognized and valued.
    Keywords:  Guidelines; Publication ethics; Questionnaire; Reviewer recruitment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03310-3
  20. Indian J Med Ethics. 2024 Jul-Sep;IX(3):IX(3): 257-258
    Fixing errors in the PubMed entry of the abstract of an article.
    Natasha Das, Saurendra Das.
      We chanced upon a number of errors in a PubMed entry (PMID: 24727622) of the abstract of an article published in your journal a decade ago. This prompted us to think how PubMed entries are rectified and whether it may be important to publish an erratum in a forthcoming issue of the journal when the original source on the journal's website has no error.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.037
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒09‒01 at 6:21.