bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒10‒20
38 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Is it still worth writing a research paper in 2024?
  2. Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals.
  3. US peer reviewers received over $1bn in industry payments over three years.
  4. The publish or perish game: an interview with the inventor.
  5. 'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching.
  6. The responsibility of publishing early outbreak data.
  7. Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor.
  8. Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals.
  9. Open Access Publication at a Crossroads-Implications for Researchers and Beyond.
  10. Peer review bullying threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  11. Recommendations for reviewing manuscripts of the article types "project report" and "how to" for the GMS Journal for Medical Education.
  12. Experience of a peer prereview service including a junior reviewer program in a professional association.
  13. Editor bias and transparency in psychology's open science era.
  14. The early days of peer review: five insights from historical reports.
  15. Considerations of equity, diversity and inclusion in peer reviews conducted for Medical Education.
  16. Daily briefing: Peer-review reports unsealed for papers by Turing, Watson and Crick.
  17. The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Research Integrity in Scholarly Publishing.
  18. Scientific papers that mention AI get a citation boost.
  19. Artificial intelligence in medical publishing.
  20. Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.
  21. Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum.
  22. Evaluating Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Journals with CONSORT Guidelines Using GPT-4 AI.
  23. A consensus guideline on preferred items for reporting case series in homeopathy: The PITCH statement.
  24. Publishing on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Can Advance the Work.
  25. Advice for academic authorsAcademic Writing as if Readers Matter Leonard Cassuto Princeton University Press, 2024. 224 pp.
  26. Ten simple rules to bridge ecology and palaeoecology by publishing outside palaeoecological journals.
  27. Publication requirement: Mind the gap.
  28. Six tips for going public with your lab's software.
  29. Response to Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?
  30. Implementing open science and reproducible research practices in mental health research through registered reports.
  31. A Showcase Presentation Honoring the Editorial Board of Clinics in Dermatology.
  32. Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN journal guidelines.
  33. Revised point system for publications by Dental Council of India.
  34. Wiley's automatic waiver of article processing charge (APC): Iterating contribution to the science from the underserved.
  35. Vision and Goals as the New Editor-in-Chief of Global Pediatric Health.
  36. From the Editor-in-Chief's Desk: Harnessing Pharmacoepidemiology to Provide a Brighter Future for Children with Psychiatric Disorders.
  37. Contributors: Writers, artists, photographers and researchers share the stories behind the stories.
  38. Time to Publication in Medical Education Journals: An Analysis of Publication Timelines During COVID-19 (2019-2022).
  1. J Spine Surg. 2024 Sep 23. 10(3): 329-332
    Is it still worth writing a research paper in 2024?
    Gregory M Malham, Ralph J Mobbs.
      
    Keywords:  Research methodology; academic publishing; digital technology; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-2024-01
  2. JAMA. 2024 Oct 10.
    Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals.
    David-Dan Nguyen, Anju Muramaya, Anna-Lisa Nguyen, Alan Cheng, Liam Murad, Raj Satkunasivam, Christopher J D Wallis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.17681
  3. BMJ. 2024 Oct 15. 387 q2260
    US peer reviewers received over $1bn in industry payments over three years.
    Janice Hopkins Tanne.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2260
  4. FEBS Lett. 2024 Oct 15.
    The publish or perish game: an interview with the inventor.
    Daisy Y Shu, Vik Meadows, Roberto Mota Alvidrez, Max Bai.
      Many academics often have to face the pressure to constantly publish or quietly perish. The Publish or Perish Game™, a new tabletop game created by Max Bai, flips the script and offers a satirical reflection on the academic publishing process, turning the often-stressful endeavor into an entertainment experience. In this interview, Max Bai discusses the inspiration behind the game, the creative processes, and the broader impact he hopes the game will have on the academic community.
    Keywords:  entrepreneurship; game; interview; publish or perish; startup
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.15039
  5. Nature. 2024 Oct 14.
    'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Human behaviour; Peer review; Psychology; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8
  6. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 10. pii: S1473-3099(24)00676-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    The responsibility of publishing early outbreak data.
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00676-5
  7. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024 Oct 10. e14537
    Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor.
    Samantha Hedrick, Jinzhong Yang, Yi Rong.
      
    Keywords:  academic promotion; journal impact factor; medical physics profession
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14537
  8. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 01. 7(10): e2439932
    Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals.
    Sawsan Abdel-Razig, Dora Stadler, Leen Oyoun Alsoud, Sophia Archuleta, Halah Ibrahim.
      Importance: Publishing in health professions education (HPE) journals is an integral component of academic discourse and career progression. Research in this field is shifting to an open access (OA) publishing model.Objective: To identify the characteristics and publishing models of HPE journals and explore potential associations between publication costs and journal metrics.
    Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between September 20, 2023, and February 14, 2024, using the World Bank purchasing power parity (PPP) index to analyze relative costs of article processing charges (APCs). Data on journal characteristics, impact metrics, APCs, and waiver or discount were extracted from the National Library of Medicine, Scimago, Scopus, journal websites, and email correspondence with editorial staff of journals. All HPE journals indexed in PubMed, written in or translated into English, and with HPE as a core component of their mission were included in the analysis.
    Main Outcomes and Measures: Two-year impact factor, H-index, cite score, Scientific Journal Ranking, and APC.
    Results: Among the 51 journals included, 27 (53%) adopted OA-only and 24 (47%) adopted hybrid publishing models. The median (IQR) APC for all journals was $2820.00 ($928.00-$3300.00). Associations were observed between impact factor and APC (β coefficient, $386.84; 95% CI, $226.84-$546.84; P < .001) and between cite score and APC (β coefficient, $282.40; 95% CI, $148.12-$416.61; P < .001). Of 20 journal websites with information regarding fee waivers or discounts, 7 journals (35%) confirmed fee waiver or discount. The PPP index analysis of the top 39 countries publishing HPE research showed that the financial burden of meeting the median APC for publication was 1.94 to 10.26 times higher for authors from lower-income countries than for authors from the US.
    Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adoption by HPE journals of an OA publishing model was high but access to APC waivers or discounts was limited. These factors create barriers to equitable OA practices, necessitating concerted efforts, such as increasing transparency of publishing costs, implementing economic impact analysis, expanding waivers to eligible authors, and applying holistic impact factor scoring.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39932
  9. JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Oct 04. 5(10): e242914
    Open Access Publication at a Crossroads-Implications for Researchers and Beyond.
    Kathryn A Phillips.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2914
  10. Trends Ecol Evol. 2024 Sep 27. pii: S0169-5347(24)00222-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Peer review bullying threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion.
    Farid Saleh.
      Bullying during the peer review process is an overlooked form of academic bullying. Measures to limit its negative impact are insufficient, necessitating new initiatives to protect individuals and the integrity of science. If unaddressed, peer review bullying will undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly harming early-career researchers and minorities.
    Keywords:  academia; authors; bullying behavior; editors; reviewers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.09.001
  11. GMS J Med Educ. 2024 ;41(4): Doc36
    Recommendations for reviewing manuscripts of the article types "project report" and "how to" for the GMS Journal for Medical Education.
    Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns, Angelika Homberg, Marianne Giesler, Achim Schneider, Pia Gadewoltz, Martin Boeker, Andreas Möltner, Jan Matthes.
      Objective: This position paper of the Committee on Methodology in Educational Research sets out the criteria for the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts of the article types project report and how to in the GMS Journal for Medical Education, as well as outlining the development of these criteria.Methods: In a workshop with writers, reviewers, and editors, we formulated and discussed common core elements for articles. We did this by consulting the journal's editorial board on the basis of guidelines for authors and reviewers from other journals and by using examples of articles considered less or more successful. From this, we derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria for the respective article types.
    Results: We have identified the target group, relevance, justification, and implication as the common core elements for both article types. We have also derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria from these core elements for each article type.
    Conclusion: A manuscript lacking core elements will be rejected. If aspects are not described sufficiently or are not clearly comprehensible, the manuscript must be revised.
    Keywords:  how to; medical education; peer review; project report
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001691
  12. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2024 Oct 12. pii: zxae298. [Epub ahead of print]
    Experience of a peer prereview service including a junior reviewer program in a professional association.
    Susan E Smith, Laura M Andrick, Evelyn Akuamoah-Boateng, Kwame Akuamoah-Boateng, Chancey Carothers, Tiffany Everett, Lillian S Kao, Olivia Nicastro, Corey J Witenko, Brandon Hobbs.
      DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.PURPOSE: Scientific journals have reportedly low acceptance rates. Peer review support services offering manuscript review before journal submission are uncommon but may increase success with the publication process. The purpose of this report is to describe the development and experience with a peer prereview (PPR) service offered by the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (CPP) section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
    SUMMARY: The CPP PPR service provides comprehensive review on research manuscripts before submission to a scientific journal. A junior reviewer program provides an opportunity for mentorship and professional development of reviewers. After the review is complete, authors and reviewers complete a survey regarding their experience with the service. Authors are also contacted biannually to determine their manuscript's status. From the program's start in 2011 through June 2022, 64% of the 58 manuscripts reviewed were accepted or published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.915 to 9.296. Of the 31 (82%) authors responding to the survey, 94% said that the service met or exceeded their expectations and 84% would recommend the service to a colleague. Of the 29 (76%) reviewers responding to the survey, 100% said that the service met or exceeded their expectations and 92% would be willing to review again.
    CONCLUSION: The majority of manuscripts that went through the CPP PPR service were accepted for publication, and both authors and reviewers were highly satisfied with their experience. The CPP PPR service can be used as a framework for other institutions to implement.
    Keywords:  peer review; prepublication support services; professional associations; professional development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxae298
  13. Am Psychol. 2024 Oct;79(7): 883-892
    Editor bias and transparency in psychology's open science era.
    Donald Sharpe.
      In this open science era, psychology demands researchers be transparent in their research practices. In turn, researchers might ask if journal editors are being equally transparent in their editorial practices. Editor bias is when editors fail to be fair and impartial in their handling of articles. Editor bias can arise because of identity-who authors are-or because of content-what authors write. Proposed solutions to editor bias include masking author identity and increasing editor diversity. What is needed is greater transparency. By being more transparent, editors would be in a better position to encourage others to embrace open science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001224
  14. Nature. 2024 Oct 15.
    The early days of peer review: five insights from historical reports.
    David Adam.
      
    Keywords:  History; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03287-4
  15. Med Educ. 2024 Oct 16.
    Considerations of equity, diversity and inclusion in peer reviews conducted for Medical Education.
    Karen E Hauer, Rola Ajjawi, Lulu Alwazzan, Kevin Eva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15560
  16. Nature. 2024 Oct 16.
    Daily briefing: Peer-review reports unsealed for papers by Turing, Watson and Crick.
    Flora Graham.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03421-2
  17. Am J Pathol. 2024 Oct 11. pii: S0002-9440(24)00365-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Research Integrity in Scholarly Publishing.
    Chhavi Chauhan, George Currie.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2024.10.001
  18. Nature. 2024 Oct 17.
    Scientific papers that mention AI get a citation boost.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03355-9
  19. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2024 Oct 15. 144(12):
    Artificial intelligence in medical publishing.
    Ragnhild Ørstavik.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.24.0514
  20. Conserv Biol. 2024 Oct 17. e14391
    Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.
    Jonathan J Choi, Leo C Gaskins, Joseph P Morton, Julia A Bingham, Ashley M Blawas, Christine Hayes, Carmen Hoyt, Patrick N Halpin, Brian Silliman.
      Academic review, promotion, and tenure processes place a premium on frequent publication in high-impact factor (IF) journals. However, conservation often relies on species-specific information that is unlikely to have the broad appeal needed for high-IF journals. Instead, this information is often distributed in low-IF, taxa- and region-specific journals. This suggests a potential mismatch between the incentives for academic researchers and the scientific needs of conservation implementation. To explore this mismatch, we looked at federal implementation of the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the use of the "best available science" to list a species as endangered or threatened and thus receive powerful legal protections. In assessing the relationship between academic sources of this "best available science" and ESA implementation, we looked at the 13,292 sources (e.g., academic journals, books, reports, regulations, personal communications, etc.) cited by the second Obama administration (2012-2016) across all ESA listings. We compared the IFs of all 4836 journals that published peer-reviewed papers cited in these listings against their citation frequency in ESA listings to determine whether a journal's IF varied in proportion with its contribution to federal conservation. Most of the peer-reviewed academic articles referenced in ESA listings came from low-IF or no-IF journals that tended to focus on specific taxa or regions. Although we support continued attention to cutting-edge, multidisciplinary science for its ability to chart new pathways and paradigms, our findings stress the need to value and fund the taxa- and region-specific science that underpins actionable conservation laws.
    Keywords:  Endangered Species Act; Ley de Especies en Peligro de Extinción; conservación; conservation; factor de impacto de las revistas; journal impact factor; law; ley; 保护; 期刊影响因子; 法律; 濒危物种法》
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14391
  21. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Oct 16. 30(6): 48
    Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum.
    Abu Bakkar Siddique, Brian Shaw, Johanna Dwyer, David A Fields, Kevin Fontaine, David Hand, Randy Schekman, Jeffrey Alberts, Julie Locher, David B Allison.
      The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had an important flaw. In science, it is the many details of the data themselves and the methods used to generate and analyze them that give conclusions their probative meaning. Facts may sometimes slow or distract from the clarity, tidiness, intrigue, or flow of the narrative, but nevertheless they are important for the assessment of what was done, the trustworthiness of the science, and the meaning of the findings. Nevertheless, many critical elements and facts about research studies may be omitted from the narrative and become hidden from scholarly scrutiny. We describe a "baker's dozen" shortfalls in which such elements that are pertinent to evaluating the validity of scientific studies are sometimes hidden in reports of the work. Such shortfalls may be intentional or unintentional or lie somewhere in between. Additionally, shortfalls may occur at the level of the individual or an institution or of the entire system itself. We conclude by proposing countermeasures to these shortfalls.
    Keywords:  Epistemology; Philosophy of science; Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency; Science communication; Trustworthiness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00517-w
  22. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Oct;12(10): e6227
    Evaluating Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Journals with CONSORT Guidelines Using GPT-4 AI.
    Abdullah A Al Qurashi, Amro Hajja, Ghazi F Alabdul Razzak, Dana Waleed Alkuwaity, Eman Naeem Chaudhri, Ruba Ibrahim Alharbi, Adnan M Osama Al Dwehji, Hala Abdullah Almusa, Alanoud Hammam Asaad, Hussain Amin Alobaidi, Ibrahim R Halawani, Adnan G Gelidan.
      Background: The quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for accurate interpretation and synthesis of evidence. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines provide a standardized framework for reporting RCT abstracts. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of RCT abstracts published in three major plastic surgery journals to the CONSORT tool guideline for reporting abstracts, utilizing Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 artificial intelligence (GPT-4 AI) technology.Methods: Abstracts of RCTs published between 2010 and 2023 were collected. The GPT-4 AI model was utilized to assess the abstracts based on the CONSORT criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to report the compliance scores and identify areas where abstracts lacked compliance.
    Results: Of the initially identified 500 abstracts, a total of 371 RCT abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The mean CONSORT score was 10.05 (±2.22), with a median score of 10.72. Specific areas where abstracts lacked compliance included trial design (39.6%), participant details (28.8%), intervention descriptions (15.6%), randomization process (25.3%), and the number of participants analyzed (33.4%). Trial registration (18.3%) and funding information (15.1%) were also frequently missing.
    Conclusions: Our study's innovative use of the GPT-4 AI model for analysis demonstrated the potential of AI technology in streamlining and enhancing the evaluation of research compliance. We advocate for heightened awareness and more rigorous application of CONSORT guidelines among authors, reviewers, and journal editors. Emphasizing the role of AI technology in the evaluative process can further improve the reporting quality of future RCTs in plastic surgery, contributing to more reliable and transparent research in the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006227
  23. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2024 Oct 12. pii: S0975-9476(24)00138-4. [Epub ahead of print]15(5): 101023
    A consensus guideline on preferred items for reporting case series in homeopathy: The PITCH statement.
    Abhijit Dutta.
      BACKGROUND: Case series is a valuable tool for sharing clinical experiences and generating research questions in the field of medicine. However, there is a lack of standardized reporting guideline for case series in homeopathy, which limits their utility and comparability. The aim of this study is to develop a reporting guideline for case series in homeopathy using a Delphi consensus process.METHOD: A group of 21 experts, with experience in reviewing, publishing, or editing case reports or series in homeopathy, were participated in the study. A modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with three rounds of electronic surveys to gather feedback and opinions on the items to be included in the reporting guideline. The GRADE group's nine-point Likert scale was used to rate each item's importance and criticality.
    RESULT: The Delphi process resulted in a consensus-based reporting guideline for case series in homeopathy, which includes recommendations for reporting case series in eleven sections, including 'Title,' 'Abstract,' 'Keywords,' 'Introduction,' 'Methods,' 'Results,' 'Discussion,' 'Conclusion,' 'Patient Perspectives,' 'References,' and 'Additional Information.' PITCH comprises a total of 59 items that achieved consensus agreement. Of these, 13 are optional items and 14 items are exclusively applicable for prospective type of case series.
    CONCLUSION: The PITCH reporting guideline provides a structured and standardized approach for reporting case series in homeopathy. The authors, journal editors, reviewers, and educators are encouraged to adopt and implement the guideline to enhance the quality of case series in homeopathic publications.
    Keywords:  Case series; Homeopathy; Modified delphi; Reporting guideline
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2024.101023
  24. Fam Med. 2024 Oct;56(9): 609-610
    Publishing on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Can Advance the Work.
    José E Rodríguez, Judy C Washington, Amy Fulton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2024.366445
  25. Science. 2024 Oct 18. 386(6719): 277
    Advice for academic authorsAcademic Writing as if Readers Matter Leonard Cassuto Princeton University Press, 2024. 224 pp.
    Jonathan Wai.
      A new guide teaches scholars how to write with readers in mind.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads5246
  26. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024 Oct 15. 20(10): e1012487
    Ten simple rules to bridge ecology and palaeoecology by publishing outside palaeoecological journals.
    Nick Schafstall, Xavier Benito, Sandra O Brugger, Althea L Davies, Erle Ellis, Sergi Pla-Rabes, Alicja Bonk, M Jane Bunting, Frank M Chambers, Suzette G A Flantua, Tamara L Fletcher, Caroline Greiser, Armand Hernández, Benjamin Gwinneth, Gerbrand Koren, Katarzyna Marcisz, Encarni Montoya, Adolfo Quesada-Román, Amila S Ratnayake, Pierre Sabatier, John P Smol, Nancy Y Suárez-Mozo.
      Owing to its specialised methodology, palaeoecology is often regarded as a separate field from ecology, even though it is essential for understanding long-term ecological processes that have shaped the ecosystems that ecologists study and manage. Despite advances in ecological modelling, sample dating, and proxy-based reconstructions facilitating direct comparison of palaeoecological data with neo-ecological data, most of the scientific knowledge derived from palaeoecological studies remains siloed. We surveyed a group of palaeo-researchers with experience in crossing the divide between palaeoecology and neo-ecology, to develop Ten Simple Rules for publishing your palaeoecological research in non-palaeo journals. Our 10 rules are divided into the preparation phase, writing phase, and finalising phase when the article is submitted to the target journal. These rules provide a suite of strategies, including improved networking early in the process, building effective collaborations, transmitting results more efficiently and cross-disciplinary, and integrating concepts and methodologies that appeal to ecologists and a wider readership. Adhering to these Ten Simple Rules can ensure palaeoecologists' findings are more accessible and impactful among ecologists and the wider scientific community. Although this article primarily shows examples of how palaeoecological studies were published in journals for a broader audience, the rules apply to anyone who aims to publish outside specialised journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012487
  27. Natl Med J India. 2024 May-Jun;37(3):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_12_2024. [Epub ahead of print]37(3): 171-172
    Publication requirement: Mind the gap.
    Aarati Pokale.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_12_2024
  28. Nature. 2024 Oct;634(8034): 742-743
    Six tips for going public with your lab's software.
    Julian Nowogrodzki.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Research data; Software; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03344-y
  29. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2024 Jan-Dec;11:11 23821205241275823
    Response to Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?
    Arti M Hajarnavis, Anagha V Shete.
      
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; medical education; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241275823
  30. JCPP Adv. 2024 Sep;4(3): e12275
    Implementing open science and reproducible research practices in mental health research through registered reports.
    Jessie R Baldwin, Henrik Larsson.
      To increase the number of pre-registered observational studies, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) Advances is delighted to now invite Registered Reports. Registered Reports are a format of article in which the study protocol is pre-registered and peer-reviewed before the research is conducted. If the protocol is of high quality and the proposed research topic is important, JCPP Advances will commit to publishing the study regardless of the results. This article format crucially addresses publication bias, as decisions on publication are entirely independent of the results.
    Keywords:  mental health research; open science; registered reports; reproducible research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12275
  31. Clin Dermatol. 2024 Oct 15. pii: S0738-081X(24)00212-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    A Showcase Presentation Honoring the Editorial Board of Clinics in Dermatology.
    Leonard J Hoenig.
      For over forty years, the Editorial Board of Clinics in Dermatology has been working behind the scenes to help our Editor-in Chief, Dr. Lawrence Parish, bring to readers the best contributions in dermatology. Herein, we tell the story of the beginnings of Clinics in Dermatology and provide a list of the inaugural board members of which we highlight four: Drs. Jean Civatte, John Thorne Crissey, Francisco Kerdal-Vegas, and Joseph A. Witkowski. In addition we showcase our present 44 Editorial Board members including our Managing Editor Dr. Hirak Behari Routh,our Senior Deputy Editors Dr. Larry E. Millikan, and Dr. Marcia Ramos-e-Silva, and our esteemed Chief Editor Dr. Lawrence Charles Parish and Chief Editor Designate, Dr. Vinod E. Nambudiri. We are proud that all our Editorial Board members come with stellaracademic achievements in dermatology and from all over the world. We are an active Editorial Board, who work together, issue after issue, to provide the best in peer review contributions and theme issues. We look forward to continuing in this role for many years to come and weare grateful to our current publisher, Elsevier, and to our many authors, and dear readers for their ongoing support and encouragement.
    Keywords:  Clinics in Dermatology; Editorial Board
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2024.10.004
  32. Fertil Steril. 2024 Oct 08. pii: S0015-0282(24)02004-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN journal guidelines.
    OBGYN Editors’ Integrity Group (OGEIG)
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.08.351
  33. Natl Med J India. 2024 May-Jun;37(3):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_1173_2023. [Epub ahead of print]37(3): 170-171
    Revised point system for publications by Dental Council of India.
    Balaji Manohar, Richik Chakraborty.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_1173_2023
  34. Clin Case Rep. 2024 Oct;12(10): e9471
    Wiley's automatic waiver of article processing charge (APC): Iterating contribution to the science from the underserved.
    Prajwal Pudasaini, Charles Young.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.9471
  35. Glob Pediatr Health. 2024 ;11 2333794X241287310
    Vision and Goals as the New Editor-in-Chief of Global Pediatric Health.
    Kee Chan.
      As the newly appointed Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of Global Pediatric Health (GPH), it is both an honor and a privilege to lead this prestigious journal, building upon the strong foundation established by my predecessor, Dr. Aishat Akere. Under her leadership and that of her predecessors, GPH has grown into a globally recognized platform for clinical studies, case studies, public health research, and health services delivery practices focused on the pediatric population. Dr. Akere's tenure was marked by significant achievements, including the expansion of the Editorial Board, which strengthened the journal's editorial team and expanded its global reach. My appointment comes at a time when the landscape of academic publishing is rapidly evolving, particularly with the rise in the number of online journals. Despite these changes, GPH continues to stand out, receiving over 230 submissions and more than 350 000 downloads in the year 2023 alone. These numbers reflect not only the journal's relevance but also the trust that researchers and clinicians worldwide place in GPH as a reliable source of high-quality pediatric health research. As I step into this role, my vision is to further elevate the journal's standing and impact by focusing on several key goals that align with the needs of our authors, the global community, and the field of pediatric health at large.
    Keywords:  adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); artificial intelligence (AI); conflicts and warfare; genome sequencing; genomics; global health; global pediatric health; healthcare; life course perspective; machine learning (ML); maternal and child health; newborn screening; pediatric health; post-COVID; precision medicine; public health; social determinants of health (SDOH); systems thinking
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X241287310
  36. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2024 Oct 17.
    From the Editor-in-Chief's Desk: Harnessing Pharmacoepidemiology to Provide a Brighter Future for Children with Psychiatric Disorders.
    Paul E Croarkin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2024.0112
  37. Sci Am. 2024 Nov 01. 331(4): 6
    Contributors: Writers, artists, photographers and researchers share the stories behind the stories.
    Allison Parshall.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican112024-9YzHc1FKM5njG4MiH1Xla
  38. Perspect Med Educ. 2024 ;13(1): 507-517
    Time to Publication in Medical Education Journals: An Analysis of Publication Timelines During COVID-19 (2019-2022).
    Lauren A Maggio, Joseph A Costello, Kirsten R Brown, Anthony R Artino, Steven J Durning, Ting Lan Ma.
      Introduction: COVID-19 changed scholarly publishing. Yet, its impact on medical education publishing is unstudied. Because journal articles and their corresponding publication timelines can influence academic success, the field needs updated publication timelines to set evidence-based expectations for academic productivity. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: did publication timelines significantly change around the time of COVID-19 and, if so, how?Methods: We conducted a bibliometric study; our sample included articles published between January 2018, and December 2022, that appeared in the Medical Education Journals List-24 (MEJ-24). We clustered articles into three time-based groups (pre-COVID, COVID-overlap, and COVID-endemic), and two subject-based groups (about COVID-19 and not about COVID-19). We downloaded each article's metadata from the National Library of Medicine and analyzed data using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests to compare mean time differences across groups.
    Results: Overall, time to publish averaged 300.8 days (SD = 200.8). One-way between-groups ANOVA showed significant differences between the three time-based groups F (2, 7473) = 2150.7, p < .001. The post-hoc comparisons indicated that COVID-overlap articles took significantly longer (n = 1470, M= 539; SD = 210.6) as compared to pre-COVID (n = 1281; M = 302; SD = 172.5) and COVID-endemic articles (n = 4725; M = 226; SD = 136.5). Notably, COVID-endemic articles were published in significantly less time than pre-pandemic articles, p < .001.
    Discussion: Longer publication time was most pronounced for COVID-overlap articles. Publication timelines for COVID-endemic articles have shortened. Future research should explore how the shift in publication timelines has shaped medical education scholarship.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1287
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒10‒20 at 20:56.