Thursday, June 26, 2014

B - Publication in PNAS

Aldhous P. The inside track. Nature 2014;510:330-332

Members of the US National Academy of Sciences have an inside track to publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal as they can submit up to four papers per year. This article examined the contributed track, both to assess its scientific impact and to see which members use it most heavily and why. Results showed that only a small number of scientists have used the track to the maximum allowable rate while most of them published on average fewer than one paper per year. Direct submissions are much less likely to be accepted than those contributed by academy members. Nevertheless, the journal seems to make progress trying to eliminate the abuse of publishing privileges.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

B - Mistakes in manuscripts on education and rejection

The goal of this study was to identify common mistakes made in research study manuscripts submitted to journals of Education and the effects of these mistakes on rejection by the journal editors and referees. An online questionnaire was developed for this purpose and sent to the editors and referees of Turkish journals of Education indexed in SSCI and ULAKBIM. The results show that researchers mostly make mistakes in the discussion, conclusion, and suggestions part of the manuscripts. However, mistakes made in the methods part are the most significant causes of manuscript rejection.

B - Defining and responding to plagiarism

Wager E. Defining and responding to plagiarism. Learned Publishing 2014;27(1):33-42
(doi: 10.1087/20140105)

A clear definition of plagiarism and the ability to classify it into more or less serious forms would help editors and publishers to devise policies to handle this problem. This article considers factors such as the originality of the copied material, its position in the report, the adequacy of referencing, and the intention of the authors as well as the extent of the copying. and proposes possible definitions of major and minor plagiarism in relation to scholarly publications which might be used as the basis for anti-plagiarism policies in conjunction with resources such as the COPE flowcharts.

B - Upgrading instructions for authors

Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, et al. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croatian Medical Journal 2014;55:271-280
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2014.55.271)

Journal instructions are important and need to be properly structured, linked to the available guidelines from editorial associations, and regularly revised and enforced to avoid unethical and erroneous publications. They should inform authors about the journal’s scope, priority articles, peer review policy, code of publishing ethics, structure and content of different types of accepted articles, in-house style of editing and formatting, and accompanying documents required for each submission. Properly written, printed, and available online instructions are the keys to successful publishing and indexing in prestigious bibliographic databases.

B - Review of Wikipedia citations in health science literature

Bould MD. Hladkowicz ES, Pigford AE, et al. References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature. BMJ 2014;348:g1585
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1585)

An increasing number of peer reviewed academic papers in health sciences are citing Wikipedia. This article evaluates the prevalence of Wikipedia citations in indexed health science journals, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. The relationship between academic publication and Wikipedia remains largely understudied, and international guidelines lack editorial guidance on how this resource should be used. Wikipedia is often cited when permanent, evidence based sources are available. The authors suggest that editors and reviewers insist on citing primary sources of information where possible.

B - Citation increments between collaborating countries

(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0797-3)

International collaboration enhances citation impact. Collaborating with a country increments the citations received from it. The authors observed a certain tendency for these increments to be lower in countries with greater impacts, and differences in the behaviour of the countries between the various scientific disciplines, with the effects being greatest in Social Sciences, followed by Engineering.

B - Internet publicity of data problems and corrective actions

Brookes PS. Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action. PeerJ 2014;2:e313
(doi: 10.7717/peerj.313)

Data integrity is a common discussion topic, and it is widely assumed that publicity surrounding such matters accelerates correction of the scientific record. This study aims to verify whether such public discussion of data integrity has actually had any effect. The results show that it is correlated with greater levels of subsequent actions to correct the scientific record by enhancing the motivation of journals, authors or institutions.

B - Ethics of scholarly publishing

Amos KA. The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2014;102(2):87-91
(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005)

This study explored national differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication in retracted biomedical literature. The national affiliations of authors and reasons for retraction of papers accessible through PubMed that were published from 2008 to 2012 and subsequently retracted were determined. While the United States retracted the most papers, China retracted the most papers for plagiarism and duplicate publication. Rates of plagiarism and duplicate publication were highest in Italy and Finland, respectively. Unethical publishing practices cut across nations.

B - Privacy protectionism and health information

Allen J, Holman CD, Meslin EM, et al. Privacy protectionism and health information: is there any redress for harms to health? Journal of Law and Medicine 2013;21(2):473-485

Health information collected by governments can be a valuable resource for researchers seeking to improve diagnostics, treatments and public health outcomes. This article examines the legal, ethical and structural context in which data custodians make decisions about the release of data for research. It considers the impact of those decisions on individuals. While there is strong protection against risks to privacy and multiple avenues of redress, there is no redress where harms result from a failure to release data for research.

B - Science journalism

Watts S. Society needs more than wonder to respect science. Nature 2014;508(7495):151

According to the author, there is a fundamental difference between science communication and science journalism: researchers are well placed to explain concepts, but journalists will bring the critical scrutiny needed to integrate science in society. Science journalism should weigh up the values and vices of science. A journalist needs to be persistent and brave enough to find out things that people don't want the world to know.

B - Editorial research and publication process

Marušić A, Malički M, von Elm E. Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):211-216
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.023) 

The article presents results from a discussion group of editors and experts organized by the Esteve Foundation. They included findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. They also reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. They concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish.


Friday, May 30, 2014

B - Citation-related characteristics in scientific journals

Sangwal K. Some citation-related characteristics of scientific journals published in individual countries. Scientometrics 2013;97:719-741
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1053-1)

This bibliometric study on relationships between publication language, impact factors and self-citations of journals published in individual countries, eight from Europe and one from South America (Brazil) found that: English-language journals, as a rule, have higher impact factors than non-English-language journals; all countries investigated have journals with very high self-citations but the proportion of journals with high self-citations with reference to the total number of journals published in different countries varies enormously; irrespective of the publication language, journals devoted to very specialized scientific disciplines have high self-citations.

B - Impact of article language in medical journals

Diekhoff T, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. Impact of article language in multi-language medical journals - a bibliometric analysis of self-citations and impact factor. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e76816
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076816)

This article analyzed the influence of English-language articles in multi-language medical journals. The findings suggested that a larger share of English articles in multi-language medical journals is associated with greater international visibility and recognition. Fewer self-citations were found as they are not needed to artifactually increase the impact factor. with a greater share of original articles in English.

B - Open access respiratory journals

Dai N, Xu D, Zhong X, et al. Publishing in open access era: focus on respiratory journals. Journal of Thoracic Disease 2014;6(5):564-5677.
(doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.03.18)

Open access (OA) journals benefit researchers and the general public by promoting visibility, sharing and communicating. Non-mainstream journals should turn the challenge of OA into opportunity of presenting best research articles to the global readership. The authors found that OA respiratory journals have relative higher acceptance rate and less time between submission and final publication than conventionally published journals. OA respiratory journals need to optimize their business models to promote the healthy and continuous development.

B - How to read health care news stories

Schwitzer G. A guide to reading health care news stories. JAMA Internal Medicine e-pub May 05, 2014
(doi: 10.10001/jamainternmed.2014.1359)

A team of reviewers from evaluated the reporting by US news organizations on new medical treatments, tests, products, and procedures. They graded most stories unsatisfactory on 5 of 10 review criteria: costs, benefits, harms, quality of the evidence, and comparison of the new approach with alternatives. They established that the stories often emphasize or exaggerate potential benefits, minimize or ignore potential harms, and ignore cost issues. These findings can help journalists improve their news stories and help physicians and the public better understand the strengths and weaknesses of news media coverage of medical and health topics.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

B - Publication guidelines for industry medical research

Wager E, Woolley K, Adshead V, et al. Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004780
(doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004780)

The authors published the results from the Global Publication Survey, a large-scale, international survey to obtain information about the ways in which medical writers and other publication professionals work, and about current knowledge and implementation of publication guidelines within the pharmaceutical, medical device and medical communications industries. The survey showed high reported levels of knowledge of the various publication guidelines, with over 90% of respondents stating that they routinely referred to them. The survey also aimed at clarifying and monitoring trends that may require further research, insight or education.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

B - Guidance on research integrity in Europe

Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K. Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. The Lancet 2013;381(9872):1097-1098
(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X)

The authors retrieved and analysed 49 national guidelines addressing research misconduct and promoting scientific integrity, published by 19 European countries. They found a highly heterogenous picture within and between European countries resulting in a confusing situation. In addition, they had great difficulty in retrieving the guidelines of 12 countries. The harmonization of those guidelines are therefore necessary.

B - Why growing retractions are a good sign

Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine 2013;10(12):e1001563         

The number of journals issuing retractions has grown dramatically in recent years, but the number of retractions per retracting-journal has not increased. Growing numbers of retractions are most plausibly a sign that researchers and journal editors are getting better at identifying and removing papers that are either fraudulent or plainly wrong, and there is little evidence of an increase in the prevalence of misconduct. Nevertheless, many journals still lack clear policies for misconduct and retraction, and existing policies are applied inconsistently.

B - Cheating in publications

Khan ZH. Cheating in publications - Self or others? Acta Medica Iranica 2014;52(1):1-2

Also using plagiarism, duplicate (redundant) or piecemeal publications, some authors manage to safely escape the barriers and filters the editorial staff of journals and get their papers published. It appears that cross check does little to address plagiarism of ideas.To bring an end to this menace, the author of this article suggests that referees with the necessary expertise of removing cheatings should be selected.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

B - How to be a top journal

Huh S. The new era of Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility: what should be prepared to be a top journal in the category of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2013;19(4):419-421
(doi: 10.5056/jnm.2013.19.4.419)   

Starting from the experience of the Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, the author explains what the editors of a journal indexed in the Web of Science should do in order to improve all processes of editing and publishing: invitation and arrangement of editorial board members, masthead description including aims and scope, instructions to authors, publication ethics, cover page design, lay-out style of text, manuscript management system, review process, training of reviewers, budget including article processing charge, eISSN, PMC XML or Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) XML, PubReader, CrossRef XML for digital object identifier (DOI), CrossCheck, CrossMark, FundRef, Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID), QR code, journal homepage, journal app for smart phone and smart pad, multimedia data including audio recording or video presentation, and epub ahead of print.

B - Conflict of interest disclosure form

Baethge C. The effect of a conflict of interest disclosure form using closed questions on the number of positive conflicts of interest declared - a controlled study. PeerJ 2013;1:e128.
(doi: 10.7717/peerj.128) 
Conflicts of interest (COI) are often not declared completely and accurately. One of several possible reasons for deficient COI declarations is the lack of standardized and comprehensive COI forms. In this study positive COI statements were analyzed at three German medical journals. Results showed that COI forms employing closed questions based on clear definitions of conflicts of interests, such as those recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and now used by Deutsches Ärzteblatt, seem to be superior to less structured forms.

B - The first scientific journal

Singleton A. The first scientific journal. Learned Publishing 2014;27(1):2-4
(doi: 10.1087/2014101)

On the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the publication of the first scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Phil Trans), the editor of Learned Publishing took a close look at the early issues of this journal to see how much has changed in journal publishing since that time. Surprisingly he discovered many features that we associate with the modern journal, and that today we call: contents lists and indexes, letters to the editor, news and views, FAQs, book reviews, errata, adverts, illustrations, referencing, and peer review.

B - Conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals

Bosch X, Pericas JM, Hernández C, et al. Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2013;43(7):660-667
(doi: 10.1111/eci.2013.43.issue-7/issuetoc)

This study aimed to assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among high-impact biomedical journals. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 journals and collected information relevant to the disclosure available on journal websites. Results showed that authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of journals, and that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests.


B - Online-to-print delays and impact factor

Tort ABL, Targino ZH, Amaral OB. Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLoS ONE 2012;7(2):e53374
(doi: 10.1371/journale.pone.0053374)

In this study the authors used publication records of neuroscience journals to analyze the evolution of publication delay over the last decade, and to study whether this phenomenon can alter journal impact factors. They showed that online-to-print lags (that is, the delay between online availability of an article and its print publication) have risen steeply in recent years, and that they led to earlier citations, and thus to an increase in impact factors. According to the authors, a simple means to avoid distortions such as the one described is the indexing of articles by scientific databases on the date of their online appearance, rather than on that of their publication in print.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

B - New ideas in science

Maqbool F, Bahadar H, Abdollahi M. Science for the benefit of all; the way from idea to product. Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas epub February 2014
(doi: 10.1016/j.jmhi.2014.02.002)

Mutual coordination between academia and industries is extremely important for the growth of science. The spread of ideas is only possible with publication and distribution of information to all in the world. Unpublished new ideas will remain hidden. It is necessary that all scientists share their ideas, opening new opportunities for others to work in the various aspects them. It is important to ponder new ways in science, generate new ideas and share with others, so the concept of “science for the benefits of all” remain alive forever.

B - Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications

Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, NAkazhanov NA, et al. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croatian Medical Journal 2013;54:600-608
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600)

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in biomedical publications. Financial relationships of research institutions and their investigators is the most conspicuous source of COI. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

B - Salami publication

Šupak Smolčić V. Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica 2013;23(3):237-141
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2013.030)

Salami publication is a distinct form of redundant publication that is characterized by similarity of hypothesis, methodology or results but not text similarity. There is no software application or algorithm for its detection, and therefore it presents a serious threat to publication ethics. This article describes a practical approach, including examples, for dealing with manuscripts suspected of salami publication through the experience of Biochemia Medica journal.

B - Case reports

Barić H, Andrijašević L. Why should medical editors CARE about case reports? Croatian Medical Journal 2013;54:507-509
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.507)

In September 2013, CARE (CAse REport) guidelines were presented and published in several journals. Even though case reports are indispensable for medical progress since they bring attention to novel entities, in the evidence based era of impact factors and citations, they are often considered to be less valuable and often neglected by both publishers and readers, due to their low citation rates. However, case reports have not only changed and grown more complex in their form, but continue to report on a wide range of topics other than direct clinical experience. Today they play a significant role in medical education and help emphasize ethical predicaments.

B - Peer review simulation

Paolucci M. Grimaldo F. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics epub February 2014
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1)

In this work, with an agent-based approach, the authors developed a computational model as an heuristic device to represent, discuss and compare theoretical statements and their consequences. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, they examined computational models of peer review, performing the replication of simulations using different mechanisms. Plausible changes showed that peer review can withstand a substantial amount of cheaters, causing just a graceful decline in total quality.