bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒10‒06
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Replication marketplaces would help science to become more self-correcting.
  2. A qualitative study exploring graduated medical residents' research experiences, barriers to publication and strategies to improve publication rates from medical residents.
  3. Email invitations to publish: Academically sound (such as SAFP) versus potentially predatory journals.
  4. The quest for an unbiased scientific impact indicator remains open.
  5. Trends in scientific publishing: does quantity compromises quality in life sciences and medicine?
  6. Impact factor and uncited articles.
  7. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting.
  8. The changing roles of scientific journals.
  9. Association of Double-Blind Reviews with Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report from the Journal of Cardiac Failure.
  10. What Makes a Great Peer Reviewer in Neurology Education?
  11. LETter To the EditoR Standards (LETTERS): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
  12. Cultural distance, gender and praise in peer review.
  13. The importance of methodological vigilance in the peer-review process.
  14. Peer review by committee? New journal rethinks old model.
  15. How to Peer Review a Neurology Education Manuscript.
  16. Ways to improve the methodology of meta-analysis in sports and exercise medicine: what do we often see in peer review?
  17. The need for open access MRI in psychosis: introducing a new global imaging resource (PsyShareD).
  18. Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI.
  19. [Artificial intelligence and scientific publishing].
  20. Methodology Articles are Beneficial for Developing Nursing Science.
  21. Key Steps to Writing a Great Case Report: Teach Us.
  22. Apology for the publication of Sheng et al. (2024).
  23. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study.
  1. R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Oct;11(10): 240850
    Replication marketplaces would help science to become more self-correcting.
    Joachim Hüffmeier, Clara Kühner.
      Independent replications are very rare in the behavioural and social sciences. This is problematic because they can help to detect 'false positives' in published research and, in turn, contribute to scientific self-correction. The lack of replication studies is, among other factors, due to a rather passive editorial approach concerning replications by many journals, which does not encourage and may sometimes even actively discourage submission of replications. In this Perspective article, we advocate for a more proactive editorial approach concerning replications and suggest introducing journal-based replication marketplaces as a new publication track. We argue that such replication marketplaces could solve the long-standing problem of lacking independent replications. To establish these marketplaces, a designated part of a journal's editorial board identifies the most relevant new findings reported within the journal's pages and publicly offers them for replication. This public offering could be combined with small grants for authors to support these replications. Authors then compete for the first accepted registered report to conduct the related replications and can thus be sure that their replication will be published independent of the later findings. Replication marketplaces would not only increase the prevalence of independent replications but also help science to become more self-correcting.
    Keywords:  journal policies; meta-science; open science; replication; scientific self-correction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240850
  2. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Oct 04. 24(1): 1091
    A qualitative study exploring graduated medical residents' research experiences, barriers to publication and strategies to improve publication rates from medical residents.
    Dorothy Kamya, Brigette Macharia, Wangari Waweru Siika, Caroline K Mbuba.
      BACKGROUND: In Kenya, postgraduate medical residents must complete a research dissertation for their Master of Medicine studies. However, the subsequent publication rate is lower than in higher-income settings, limiting the availability of population-specific data. This study explored residents' experiences with research, reasons for the low publication rate, and strategies to improve publication rates.METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 9 faculty members and non-academic support staff, as well as 18 Master of Medicine graduates who had successfully completed their research projects, to investigate their experiences with conducting, supervising, and publishing research. The interview data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study also explored strategies to improve publication rates.
    RESULTS: The graduates (former medical residents) described difficult research journeys - from concept development to final submission of dissertation - which discouraged them from seeking publication. Many faculty and staff lacked time or sufficient expertise to successfully guide residents to publication. Departmental research culture, faculty expertise as supervisors and prioritisation of clinical work over research and lack of dedicated research time impacted both residents' and faculty capacity for research. Strategies to improve publication rates focused on developing faculty research expertise, more protected research time, and a more structured approach to teaching research methodology, including academic writing skills.
    CONCLUSIONS: Residents in low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya encounter systemic and personal challenges to successful publication of research. The ease or difficulty of a resident's research journey influences their attitudes to subsequent publication. Strategies to improve publication rates can improve the dissemination of relevant research data in such settings.
    Keywords:  Kenya; LMIC Research; Low- and middle-income countries; Medical education; Postgraduate; Qualitative research; Research publication; Resident research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06068-9
  3. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2024 Sep 25. 66(1): e1-e5
    Email invitations to publish: Academically sound (such as SAFP) versus potentially predatory journals.
    Gina Joubert, Omololu Aluko.
      BACKGROUND:  Researchers increasingly receive invitations by email to publish. We analysed email publication invitations received by staff members of the Department of Biostatistics, University of the Free State (UFS), comparing emails relating to accredited and non-accredited journals.METHODS:  This cross-sectional study included all publication invitations received via UFS email accounts by staff members from May 2023 to July 2023. The researchers independently completed the data form, then checked and resolved any discrepancies.
    RESULTS:  Of the 93 distinct emails received from 88 journals, only 15 (16%) were received from a journal appearing on the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) accredited journal lists. These included South African Family Practice (SAFP) and the African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine (PHCFM). Emails from non-accredited journals were significantly (p  0.01) less likely to refer to a journal with a health sciences-related title (37% vs. 86%), indicate the publisher (36% vs. 93%), provide a link to the journal website (59% vs. 100%), state a full physical address (24% vs. 80%), refer to author instructions (21% vs. 47%) or request the recipient to share the email with colleagues (5% vs. 47%). Emails from non-accredited journals were significantly (p  0.01) more likely to contain grammatical errors (63% vs. 0%) and flattering remarks regarding the recipient or his or her research work (49% vs. 0%), and to indicate the journal's International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) (67% vs. 13%).
    CONCLUSION:  Clear differences were found between email invitations from accredited versus non-accredited journals.Contribution: The findings provide insight into warning signals in email publication invitations.
    Keywords:  accredited journals; articles; email; invitation; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v66i1.5984
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Oct 08. 121(41): e2410021121
    The quest for an unbiased scientific impact indicator remains open.
    Giacomo Vaccario, Shuqi Xu, Manuel S Mariani, Matúš Medo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2410021121
  5. Syst Rev. 2024 Oct 01. 13(1): 249
    Trends in scientific publishing: does quantity compromises quality in life sciences and medicine?
    Said El Shamieh, Alain Chebly.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02668-0
  6. J Food Sci. 2024 Oct;89(10): 6063-6064
    Impact factor and uncited articles.
    Richard Hartel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17415
  7. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 Sep 30. 9(1): 10
    Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting.
    Jonas Heymann, Naichuan Su, Clovis Mariano Faggion.
      BACKGROUND: Reporting conflicts of interest (COI) and sources of sponsorship are of paramount importance in adequately interpreting the results of systematic reviews. Some evidence suggests that there is an influence of COI and sponsorship on the study results. The objectives of this meta-research study were twofold: (a) to assess the reporting of COI and sponsorship statements in systematic reviews published in dentistry in three sources (abstract, journal's website and article's full text) and (b) to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and reporting of COI.METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for dental systematic reviews published from database inception to June 2023. We assessed how COI and sponsorship statements were reported in the three sources. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the reporting of COI.
    RESULTS: We assessed 924 abstracts published in PubMed and on the corresponding journals´ websites. Similarly, full texts associated with the 924 abstracts were also assessed. A total of 639 (69%) and 795 (88%) studies had no statement of COI in the abstracts on PubMed and the journal's website, respectively. In contrast, a COI statement was reported in 801 (87%) full texts. Sponsorship statements were not reported in 911 (99%) and 847 (93%) abstracts published in PubMed and a journal´s website, respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the full-text articles (N = 607) included sponsorship statements. Journal access was significantly associated with COI statement reporting in all three sources. Open-access journals have significantly higher odds to report COI in PubMed and full-texts, while have significantly lower odds to report COI in the websites, compared with subscription or hybrid journals. Abstract type was significantly associated with COI statement reporting on the journal's website and in the full text. Review registration based on the full text and the number of authors were significantly associated with COI statement reporting in PubMed and in the full texts. Several other variables were found to be significantly associated with COI statement reporting in one of the three sources.
    CONCLUSIONS: COI and sponsorship statements seem to be underreported in the abstracts and homepage of the journals, compared to the full-texts. These results were particularly more pronounced in abstracts published in both the PubMed database and the journals' websites. Several characteristics of systematic reviews were associated with COI statement reporting.
    Keywords:  Abstract; Conflict of interest; Ethics in publishing; Methods; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00150-y
  8. mBio. 2024 Oct 04. e0251524
    The changing roles of scientific journals.
    Arturo Casadevall, Lorraine F Clark, Ferric C Fang.
      After centuries of relative stability, the scientific publishing world has undergone tremendous disruption and change during the first decades of the 21st century. The causes for disruption can be traced to the information revolution, which brought such benefits as rapid publication, greater connectivity, and ready access to large databases, along with less desirable practices including image manipulation, plagiarism, and other ethical transgressions. The information revolution has driven the proliferation of journals, expansion of for-profit academic publishing, and empowerment of the open-access movement, each of which has exerted new financial pressures on traditional publishing models. As journals became the focal point for ethical concerns in science, they have adapted by increasing the scope of their duties, which now include archiving of data, enforcement of good practices, establishment of standards for rigor, and training the next generation of reviewers and editors. Here, we consider the seismic changes occurring in scientific publishing and place them into the context of a rapidly changing landscape of scientific and publishing norms.
    Keywords:  journals; publishing; scientific
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02515-24
  9. J Card Fail. 2024 Sep 21. pii: S1071-9164(24)00378-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Association of Double-Blind Reviews with Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report from the Journal of Cardiac Failure.
    Ersilia M DeFilippis, Elena Donald, Logan Cho, Andrew Sauer, Jennifer Maning, Vanessa Blumer, Alexander Hajduczok, Quentin Youmans, Martha Gulati, Meredith T Hurt, Alayna Humphrey, Nosheen Reza, Robert Mentz, Anu Lala.
      INTRODUCTION: Women continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously utilizing single-blind reviews with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current manuscript was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews.METHODS: Manuscripts were stratified into 3 eras: March - September 2021 (Era 1 - prior to double blind reviews), March - September 2022 (Era 2), and March - September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and discipline of first and senior authors.
    RESULTS: A total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3 while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time around 21-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first author discipline, and last author gender, there was an increase in female first author over time (p= 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and highlight areas for future improvement for JCF and academic publishing.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; diversity, equity and inclusion; gender bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.09.004
  10. Neurol Educ. 2024 Jun;3(2): e200139
    What Makes a Great Peer Reviewer in Neurology Education?
    Roy E Strowd.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1212/NE9.0000000000200139
  11. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Sep 30. 39(37): e296
    LETter To the EditoR Standards (LETTERS): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
    Ilke Coskun Benlidayi, Latika Gupta.
      Correspondence in the form of letters to the editor serves multiple scholarly purposes, including critiquing previously published articles, engaging in discourse with other correspondents, commenting on the journal's structure or style, and contributing insights for future publications. The composition of such letters warrants meticulous attention, as they play a crucial role in fostering communication between the journal and its readership. Adherence to specific principles is essential in crafting an effective letter to the editor. These communications should be concise, lucid, and adhere to a professional tone. The content should be constructive in nature and substantiated by rigorous scientific evidence and appropriate citations. The structure of a letter to the editor typically encompasses several key components: a title, an opening section, the main body of the correspondence, a closing statement, and a list of references. This article aims to establish Letter to the Editor Standards as a comprehensive guide for authors, reviewers, and editorial boards, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of this crucial form of academic discourse.
    Keywords:  Correspondence as Topic; Letter; Medical Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e296
  12. Account Res. 2024 Oct 03. 1-26
    Cultural distance, gender and praise in peer review.
    Guangyao Zhang, Lili Wang, Xianwen Wang.
      Background: Understanding review comments holds significant importance within the realm of scientific discourse. This study aims to conduct an empirical analysis of factors associated with praise in peer review.Methods: The study involved manual labeling of "praise" in 952 review comments drawn from 301 articles published in the British Medical Journal, followed by regression analysis.Results: The study reveals that authors tend to receive longer praise when they share a cultural proximity with the reviewers. Additionally, it is observed that female reviewers are more inclined to provide praiseConclusions: In summary, these discoveries contribute valuable insights for the development of a constructive peer review process and the establishment of a more inclusive research culture.
    Keywords:  Praise; culture; gender; peer review; review comments
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2409310
  13. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024 Oct 01.
    The importance of methodological vigilance in the peer-review process.
    Nancy A Collop.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.11404
  14. Nature. 2024 Oct 01.
    Peer review by committee? New journal rethinks old model.
    Jackson Ryan.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03039-4
  15. Neurol Educ. 2023 Dec 22. 2(4): e200099
    How to Peer Review a Neurology Education Manuscript.
    Daniel G Di Luca, Steven M Lazar, Preeta Gupta, Marie Charmaine S Lukban, Cole Crowson, Dara V F Albert, Jeremy J Moeller, Andres Fernandez, Andrew M Southerland, Zachary London.
      Peer review is an essential process in scientific research, ensuring the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and suitability of manuscripts for publication. Neurology education research differs from biomedical clinical research in several ways. These differences encompass specific paradigms, the use of theoretical frameworks, and different methodological approaches. Despite the high number of studies and journal publications on neurology education, there is a dearth of resources and guidance on how to perform a formal review on this specific literature. This article aims to review the distinctive features of neurology education from clinical research while proposing an organizational framework and model for performing peer reviews of papers focused on neurology education.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1212/NE9.0000000000200099
  16. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024 ;10(3): e002256
    Ways to improve the methodology of meta-analysis in sports and exercise medicine: what do we often see in peer review?
    Patrick J Owen, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Aamir Raoof Memon, Nash Anderson, Evert Verhagen, Niamh L Mundell, Daniel L Belavy.
      
    Keywords:  Exercise; Medicine; Meta-analysis; Sports
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002256
  17. Schizophrenia (Heidelb). 2024 Oct 01. 10(1): 85
    The need for open access MRI in psychosis: introducing a new global imaging resource (PsyShareD).
    Simon L Evans, Paul Allen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-024-00501-0
  18. Eur J Pain. 2024 Oct 03.
    Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI.
    Federico Palmisani, Daniel Segelcke, Jan Vollert.
      BACKGROUND: The public release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked a boom and public interest in generative artificial intelligence (AI) that has led to journals and journal families hastily releasing generative AI policies, ranging from asking authors for acknowledgement or declaration to the outright banning of use.RESULTS: Here, we briefly discuss the basics of machine learning, generative AI, and how it will affect scientific publishing. We focus especially on potential risks and benefits to the scientific community as a whole and journals specifically.
    CONCLUSION: While the concerns of editors, for example about manufactured studies, are valid, some recently implemented or suggested policies will not be sustainable in the long run. The quality of generated text and code is quickly becoming so high that it will not only be impossible to detect the use of generative AI but would also mean taking a powerful tool away from researchers that can make their life easier every day.
    SIGNIFICANCE: We discuss the history and current state of AI and highlight its relevance for medical publishing and pain research. We provide guidance on how to act now to increase good scientific practice in the world of ChatGPT and call for a task force focusing on improving publishing pain research with use of generative AI.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4736
  19. G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2024 Oct;25(10): 695-697
    [Artificial intelligence and scientific publishing].
    Giuseppe Di Pasquale.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1714/4336.43210
  20. West J Nurs Res. 2024 Oct;46(10): 743
    Methodology Articles are Beneficial for Developing Nursing Science.
    Todd Ruppar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459241286595
  21. JACC Case Rep. 2024 Sep 04. 29(17): 102542
    Key Steps to Writing a Great Case Report: Teach Us.
    Dee Dee Wang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2024.102542
  22. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2024 Oct;30(4): 599-602
    Apology for the publication of Sheng et al. (2024).
    Su Yeong Kim, Enrique W Neblett, Royleen J Ross, Fred Millan, Helen H Hsu.
      Recently, Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (CDEMP) published Sheng et al.'s (see record 2024-72017-001) article titled "The Development of Tibetan Children's Racial Bias in Empathy: The Mediating Role of Ethnic Identity and Wrongfulness of Ethnic Intergroup Bias." The article went through the standard peer review process. Subsequent to its publication, one of our readers expressed concerns regarding the biased language (e.g., "backwardness of education") and deficit-oriented interpretation of findings (e.g., "the geographical environment and traditional way of life in Tibet can also impact the development of [racial biases in empathy] in Tibetan children"). The reader rightly pointed out that this language and interpretation reinforce imperialism, particularly given the complex relations between Tibet and China. We sincerely apologize to our readers, and especially to our Tibetan colleagues, for failing to identify these issues prior to the publication of the article.Wetake accountability for the oversight and have followed due process to correct our mistakes in the publication of this article. We will also take action to prevent this from happening again. In this editorial, we describe the study, actions taken by the CDEMP Editorial Team, the authors' response, and future actions to be taken by the CDEMP Editorial Team. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000708
  23. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 May 01. 25(5): 459-462
    Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study.
    Fahad Alharbi, Rawda O Alghabban.
      AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with "SR" or "meta-analysis" keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors.
    RESULTS: The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement.
    CONCLUSION: The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts. How to cite this article: Alharbi F, Alghabban RO. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(5):459-462.
    Keywords:  Abstract quality; Orthodontics; Reporting quality Systematic reviews.; The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3678
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒10‒06 at 14:33.