-
Military Medicine Jul 2023
Topics: Humans; Military Medicine; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 37433018
DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usad242 -
Clinical Neuroradiology Jun 2024It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to...
PURPOSE
It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to explore the integrity of clinical neuroradiological research using a survey method.
METHODS
Corresponding authors who published in one of four top clinical neuroradiology journals were invited to complete a survey about integrity in clinical neuroradiology research.
RESULTS
A total of 232 corresponding authors participated in our survey. Confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in clinical neuroradiology (0-10 point scale) was rated as a median score of 8 (range 3-10). In linear regression analysis, respondents from Asia had significantly higher confidence (beta coefficient of 0.569, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.049-1.088, P = 0.032). Of the respondents 8 (3.4%) reported to have committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, whereas 66 respondents (28.4%) reported to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. A total of 192 respondents (82.8%) thought that a study with positive results is more likely to be accepted by a journal than a similar study with negative results and 96 respondents (41.4%) had an honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years.
CONCLUSION
Experts in the field have overall high confidence in published clinical neuroradiology research; however, scientific integrity concerns are not negligible, publication bias is a problem and honorary authorship is common. The findings from this survey may help to increase awareness and vigilance among anyone involved in clinical neuroradiological research.
Topics: Scientific Misconduct; Humans; Biomedical Research; Authorship; Surveys and Questionnaires; Periodicals as Topic; Neuroradiography; Publication Bias; Publishing
PubMed: 38095663
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-023-01280-4 -
Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 2023The COVID-19 pandemic exerted manifold pressures on the public health framework globally, but it also in a way unified different genres and allowed for strategizing and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic exerted manifold pressures on the public health framework globally, but it also in a way unified different genres and allowed for strategizing and implementing regulatory decisions as best as possible, especially in India. There is an unmet need for such a unified and integrative approach in the area of scientific publishing which has also been touched by various dilemmas, either emergent or propagated during this pandemic.
OBJECTIVES
This article intends to re-visit some of the dilemmas in scientific publishing, which have taken centre stage owing to a healthcare emergency, with the objective of highlighting an unmet need for developing unified criteria for research conduction and publishing from a futuristic view point, as one is not without the other.
CONTENT
While a fast track delivery of research data has been a priority for research journals, the due pressures in the process management of the same while skimming the ethical boundaries of responsible mediation through a Journal platform has remained a challenge globally for various reasons. Furthermore, the inevitability of a healthcare emergency inadvertently led to some cumulative off-target effects including accumulation of research waste, diminishing validity of academic metrics, short data set publications, hasty zombie clinical trials publishing merely an overview of the actual data, etc, which are major issues not only for journal Editors or the research community as a whole, but also for regulatory authorities and policy makers. As a step towards future pandemic preparedness, strategizing and streamlining research and publication processes ensuing responsible reporting should be treated as a topic of paramount significance. Hence, through debating on these dilemmas as well as potential integrative approaches, unified guiding criteria in the area of scientific publishing may be developed in lieu of preparedness for such future pandemic scenarios.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Pandemics; Public Health; India
PubMed: 37019728
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2023.100366 -
AJOB Neuroscience 2023Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a...
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.
Topics: Publishing; Editorial Policies; Scholarly Communication
PubMed: 37856337
DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2023.2257181 -
Advances in Health Sciences Education :... Jul 2024In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem,...
In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem, and the prospects for sustaining communities of scholars with and without an ongoing commitment to peer review.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Editorial Policies; Peer Review
PubMed: 38864958
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-024-10350-2 -
Journal of Food Science May 2024
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Food Technology; Editorial Policies; Statistics as Topic
PubMed: 38761161
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.17072 -
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Reproductive Health; Publishing
PubMed: 38727701
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2024.2346412 -
Publication Rates Vary Across Orthopaedic Subspecialties: A Longitudinal Analysis of AAOS Abstracts.The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal Dec 2023Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic...
BACKGROUND
Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic advancement. However, the academic landscape and pressures that researchers face may differ greatly across different subspecialties. This study attempts to explore and quantify differences in research presented at national conferences and its implication on ultimate likelihood of publication in peer-reviewed journals.
METHODS
All abstracts from the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed and categorized based on subspecialty focus. Resulting publications were identified using a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Multivariate binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the predictive value of abstract characteristics on eventual publication.
RESULTS
A total of 1805 abstracts from the 2016 and 2017 AAOS conferences were reviewed. The overall publication rate of abstracts following the AAOS meetings was 71.6%, with an average time to publication from abstract submission deadline and impact factor of 19.8 months and 2.878, respectively. Statistical differences were observed across subspecialties with respect to publication rate (p<0.001), time to publication (p<0.001), and impact factor (p<0.001). The subspecialty with the highest publication rate, largest impact factor, and shortest average time to publication was Sports Medicine with 83.2%, 3.98, and 17.6 months, respectively; despite lower average sample size (p<0.001) and frequency of multicenter design (p<0.001) compared with other subspecialties. The subspecialty with the lowest publication rate and impact factor was Hand and Wrist with 53.3% and 1.41, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates a lower likelihood for internationally authored abstracts (OR: 0.75, p=0.021) and higher likelihood for basic science abstracts (OR: 1.52, p-value=0.023) to reach publication.
CONCLUSION
Differences in publication rate across orthopaedic subspecialties were observed with articles in sports medicine more likely to be published, published quickly, and featured in a higher impact factor journals. Understanding these differences, and how they relate to the publication and promotion of novel research, is important for orthopaedic researchers. .
Topics: Humans; Logistic Models; Orthopedics; Societies, Medical; Sports Medicine; United States; Publishing; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 38213852
DOI: No ID Found -
The New England Journal of Medicine Apr 2024
Topics: Humans; Ethics; Ethics, Medical; Germany; History, 20th Century; Medicine; National Socialism; Prejudice; Propaganda; Publishing; Science; Systemic Racism; United States; Human Rights
PubMed: 38557594
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2307319 -
Practical Radiation Oncology 2023
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 37737809
DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.012