Search

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread exponentially throughout the world in a short period, aided by our hyperconnected world including global trade and travel. Unlike previous pandemics, the pace of the spread of the virus has been matched by the pace of publications, not just in traditional journals, but also in preprint servers. Not all publication findings are true, and sifting through the firehose of data has been challenging to peer reviewers, editors, as well as to consumers of the literature, that is, scientists, healthcare workers, and the general public. There has been an equally exponential rise in the public discussion on social media. Rather than decry the pace of change, we suggest the nephrology community should embrace it, making deposition of research into preprint servers the default, encouraging prepublication peer review more widely of such preprint studies, and harnessing social media tools to make these actions easier and seamless.

Objective Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company's efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate. Methods A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined. Results The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products. Conclusion The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.

Academics have a duty towards peers and scholars alike to engage in research work and to publish their findings. This also assists in establishing personal academic success as well as the attainment of research grants. In the past, authors used to publish their research articles for free but access to these articles was restricted to subscription users only. Recently, open access publishing has gained momentum, whereby such articles are made freely accessible online. However open access publishing comes with a price tag for the author through article processing charges. Open access may also question a journal's credibility within the academic world if improperly implemented. This is particularly so following the unsolicited bombardment of researchers' email accounts with invitations for submissions to predatory open access journals. For these reasons, authors needs to rigorously weigh the pros and cons of whether to choose a subscription based or an open access journal for publication.

This data descriptor summarizes the process applied to identify, screen, select and gather data from the content of 142 peer-reviewed papers/sources that report on the sources and impacts of recreational disturbance on coastal avifauna. While populations of resident and migratory coastal avifauna are under threat and diminishing rapidly across the planet, and particularly in association with Asian flyways, many governments are leveraging booming global demand for coastal recreation and tourism in order to deliver economic development to regional communities. The summary data shared via this data description was extracted from papers collected in a systematic literature review that was designed to explore the global literature on the recreational disturbance of coastal avifauna in order to elucidate the state of the global knowledge regarding this issue and to identify management strategies that could be applied at tropical Asian destinations to minimize the impacts of recreational disturbance and thus enhance the ecological sustainability of coastal recreation and tourism across the region. The data shared via the Excel worksheet associated with this data descriptor was extracted from peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1 January 2000 and the 31 December 2018 with the full text of the article available online. These articles were found by searching several online indexing several databases including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest and Google Scholar.

The editors of this journal meet many researchers at conferences and workshops who have tried and failed to publish the results of their studies. Having experienced these ourselves as authors, we do understand the frustration that potential authors often express. For those new to the publishing world, the disappointment of rejection runs deep, and often, despite very helpful reviews, that paper might never be resurrected again. The reality is that when a paper is rejected the reviewers or editors have detected significant problems with that paper that preclude its potential usefulness to our audience. In this editorial, we provide an overview of the primary reasons for rejection from the European Journal of Oncology Nursing (EJON), in the hope that authors will understand our reasoning and to help them avoid rejection in the future.

Writing and publishing scientific papers have become requisites for all scientists (researchers and academics alike) to maintain their professional career. The prospects of writing a scientific paper are often regarded as somewhat daunting to the uninitiated. However a universal, well established structure format known as "IMRAD": i.e. Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion has been established. This paper details this methodology.

In naturally occurring numbers the frequencies of digits 1–9 in the leading position are counterintuitively distributed because the frequencies of occurrence are unequal. Benford-Newcomb’s law describes the expected distribution of these frequencies. It was previously shown that known fraudulent articles consistently violated this law. To compare the features of 12 known fraudulent articles from a single Japanese author to the features of 13 articles in the same research field from other Japanese authors, published during the same time period and identified with a Medline database search. All 25 articles were assessed to determine whether the data violated the law. Formulas provided by the law were used to determine the frequencies of occurrence for the first two leading digits in manually extracted numbers. It was found that all the known fraudulent papers violated the law and 6 of the 13 articles used for comparison followed the law. Assuming that the articles in the comparison group were not falsified or fabricated, the sensitivity of assessing articles with Benford-Newcomb’s law was 100% (95% confidence interval CI: 73.54–100%) but the specificity was only 46.15% (95% CI: 19.22–74.87%) and the positive predictive value was 63.16% (95% CI: 38.36–83.71%). All 12 of the known falsified articles violated Benford-Newcomb’s law, which indicated that this analysis had a high sensitivity. The low specificity of the assessment may be explained by the assumptions made about the articles identified for comparison. Violations of Benford-Newcomb’s law about the frequencies of the leading digits cannot serve as proof of falsification but they may provide a basis for deeper discussions between the editor and author about a submitted work.

Scholarly peer review is crucial to science: it not only determines what is published where, but also, indirectly, who is hired, funded and promoted. Yet, virtually every academic has peer review horror stories. Empirical evidence suggests that "peer review is prejudiced, capricious, inefficient, ineffective, and generally unscientific" [1]. An experiment at a major machine learning conference found that peer review was unreliable highlighted that the outcome of peer review can be very noisy [2, 3]. In May 2019, ACM SIGSOFT launched an initiative to improve the quality of research papers and peer reviews at software engineering venues. It has two main components: empirical standards and recommendations for improving review processes.

The plotting of data into graphs should be a mandatory step in all data analysis as part of a descriptive statistics exercise, since it gives the researcher an overview of the shape and nature of the data. Moreover, outlier values may be identified, which may be incorrect data, or true outliers, from which important findings (and publications) may arise. This exercise should always precede inferential statistics, when possible, and this paper in the Early Human Development WASP series provides some pointers for doing so in Microsoft Excel™.

ObjectiveThe ENT Scotland society (formerly known as the Scottish Otolaryngological Society) has two meetings a year and accepts oral presentations from trainees. This study aimed to identify publication rates from these meetings.MethodsAbstracts of the presentations are published in The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify which presentations from the 2005 to 2014 meetings have been published.ResultsOf the 145 abstracts found, 60.7 per cent were presenting clinical research and 44.1 per cent were related to the head and neck subspecialty. Seventy-three abstracts (50.3 per cent) were associated with publication as a peer-reviewed article; otology papers were more likely to be published than those focusing on other subspecialties (64.3 per cent, p = 0.036). No correlation was found between publication and other factors.ConclusionPresentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences.

Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These “software papers” are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way., Author summary Computational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the software they write stands up to the same scientific scrutiny as traditional research studies. These 10 simple rules make doing so easier by enhancing usability, reproducibility, transparency, and other crucial characteristics that aren’t taught in most computer science or research methods curricula.

Journal peer review lies at the heart of academic quality control. This article explores the journal peer review process and seeks to examine how the reviewing process might itself contribute to papers, leading them to be more highly cited and to achieve greater recognition. Our work builds on previous observations and views expressed in the literature about (a) the role of actors involved in the research and publication process that suggest that peer review is inherent in the research process and (b) on the contribution reviewers themselves might make to the content and increased citation of papers. Using data from the journal peer review process of a single journal in the Social Sciences field (Business, Management and Accounting), we examine the effects of peer review on papers submitted to that journal including the effect upon citation, a novel step in the study of the outcome of peer review. Our detailed analysis suggests, contrary to initial assumptions, that it is not the time taken to revise papers but the actual number of revisions that leads to greater recognition for papers in terms of citation impact. Our study provides evidence, albeit limited to the case of a single journal, that the peer review process may constitute a form of knowledge production and is not the simple correction of errors contained in submitted papers.

In addition to an overview of the issue, this article is a reminder that we are fully open access, free of charge, double-blind peer reviewed, and offer well-above-average editorial support, especially for early-career researchers. All of the editorial team work in a voluntary capacity. We are committed to finding alternative models of publishing, to reclaim the project of Open Access and key it to a different register of shared creativity and responsibility and work towards a more accessible, ethical, transparent, and creative form of scholarly communication.

The evidence suggests that mentoring is one of useful teaching methods in academic medicine but it is not clear for which outcome mentoring is effective. In this study, the authors investigated the number of original research articles that the participants had published in peer-reviewed English-language journals (as a first or a corresponding author) within one year prior to investigation and what characteristics of the participants who published at least one paper would be like compared to those who did not. In March 2015, the authors recruit early- and mid-career Japanese physicians (238 men and 240 women; mean age 40.6 years old) in a web survey. In total, 23.9% of physicians had published at least one original research article as a first author, 10.0% had published as a corresponding author, and 23.4% had a research mentor. A multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for variables selected at p < 0.15 in univariable models showed that even after adjusting for their motivation levels for clinical research, physicians with a research mentor [odds ratio (OR) 6.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.74-11.93], physicians who obtained DMSc, roughly equivalent to PhD in the West (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.72), and physicians who worked at teaching hospitals (OR 6.39; 95% CI, 2.54-16.04) were more likely to publish an original paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Having a research mentor or DMSc is associated with an experience of successfully publishing original papers in peer-reviewed journals for young and mid-career physician-researchers.

The 7th biennial National Conference of APAHC, the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers, was held in Atlanta, Georgia, February 5-7, 2015. Speakers were invited to contribute manuscripts based on their conference presentations, and many submitted manuscripts for this special edition of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings. Some papers will appear in the December 2015 issue of JCPMS; others will appear in the March 2016 issue. All papers have undergone a rigorous peer review process. The Conference Co-Chairs, Drs. Laura Shaffer and Amit Shahane, are Guest Editors for the special issue. In this article, they provide an overview of the conference's major themes, and also discuss some aspects of conference planning.

t-Testing is a common component of inferential statistics when comparing two means. This paper explains the central limit theorem and the concept of the null hypothesis as well as types of errors. On the practical side, this paper outlines how different t-tests may be performed in Microsoft Excel, for different purposes, both statically as well as dynamically, with Excel's functions.

Background There is widespread evidence that statistical methods play an important role in original research articles, especially in medical research. The evaluation of statistical methods and reporting in journals suffers from a lack of standardized methods for assessing the use of statistics. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an instrument to assess the statistical intensity in research articles in a standardized way. Methods A checklist-type measure scale was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the statistical contents of medical journal articles and from published guidelines for statistical reporting. A total of 840 original medical research articles that were published between 2007–2015 in 16 journals were evaluated to test the scoring instrument. The total sum of all items was used to assess the intensity between sub-fields and journals. Inter-rater agreement was examined using a random sample of 40 articles. Four raters read and evaluated the selected articles using the developed instrument. Results The scale consisted of 66 items. The total summary score adequately discriminated between research articles according to their study design characteristics. The new instrument could also discriminate between journals according to their statistical intensity. The inter-observer agreement measured by the ICC was 0.88 between all four raters. Individual item analysis showed very high agreement between the rater pairs, the percentage agreement ranged from 91.7% to 95.2%. Conclusions A reliable and applicable instrument for evaluating the statistical intensity in research papers was developed. It is a helpful tool for comparing the statistical intensity between sub-fields and journals. The novel instrument may be applied in manuscript peer review to identify papers in need of additional statistical review.

SUBSTANTIAL: evidence documents the benefits of peer support provided by community health workers, lay health advisors, promotores de salud, and others. The papers in this supplement, all supported by the Peers for Progress program of the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, contribute to the growing body of literature addressing the efficacy, effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and adoption of peer support for diabetes self-management. They and additional papers supported by Peers for Progress contribute to understanding how peer support can be implemented in real world settings. Topics include examination of the peers who provide peer support, reaching the hardly reached, success factors in peer support interventions, proactive approaches, attention to emotions, peer support in behavioral health, dissemination models and their application in China, peer support in the patient-centered medical home, research challenges, and policy implications.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) may be required by researchers as an inferential statistical test when more than two means require comparison. This paper explains how to perform ANOVA in Microsoft Excel.

Plotting data into graphs is a crucial step in data analysis as part of an initial descriptive statistics exercise since it gives the researcher an overview of the shape and nature of the data. Outlier values may also be identified, and these may be incorrect data, or true and important outliers. This paper explains how to access Microsoft Excel's Analysis Toolpak and provides some pointers for the utilisation of the histogram tool within the Toolpak.

Peer review is a new phenomenon in the process of internationalization of academic journals, but also a worldwide problem. In this paper, the development and practical application of peer review system are sort out, which are based on objective data research of domestic and international academic journals; the problems of network online published papers in practice are analyzed and explored by modern advanced network technology as the application tool, and how scientific orientation are they to play an effective role. The purpose of paper is in order to ensure the impartiality of the academic council, spread rapidly and use information resources, and further promote to enhance the overall level of academic journals.

Open source software (OSS) is a software product with the source code made public so that anyone can read, analyze, and change or improve the code. The use of this software is under a license, like Apache, GNU, MIT, Mozilla Public, and Eclipse Public License. Open source software development (OSSD) provides high quality assurance through user testing and peer reviews. The quality of these products depends on the size of the product community. This paper discusses the stakeholders of the OSS community, the quality assurance frameworks and models proposed in some studies, some statistics about OSS, the problems that affect the quality of OSSD, and the advantages and disadvantages of OSS compared to closed source software. This allows us to understand how we can achieve and improve the quality assurance and quality control of OSSD.

Contingency tables may be required to perform chi-test analyses. This provides pointers as to how to do this in Microsoft Excel and explains how to set up methods to calculate confidence intervals for proportions, including proportions with zero numerators.

How are robot ethics described in peer-reviewed papers for children-robot studies? Do publications refer to robot ethics such as: (a) gaining children’s assent, (b) providing a robot’s description prior to data collection, (c) having a robot exposure phase before data collection and (d) informing children about a robot’s semi-autonomy or not? A total of 27 peer-reviewed papers with an average impact factor of 1.8 were analysed. 63 % of the studies did not state any ethical procedures followed. In eight studies children gave their assent for the experiment; six studies described the robot to children prior to data collection; two studies provided a robot exposure phase prior to data collection and one study informed children that robots are operated machines. The outcomes indicate problematic applications of robot ethics in peer-reviewed journals and the necessity for the publishing industry to consider stricter actions on this aspect of a publication.

Extensive research has been conducted in recent years on how radiofrequency fields (RF) generated by mobile phones and other wireless communication devices might affect health. However, so far, no scientific consensus is reached. On the one hand there are reports from independent international expert groups who claim that there are no solid indications that such fields may impair human health, on the other hand there are numerous published scientific papers showing alarming effects on virtually all investigated endpoints. Members of ‘action groups’ and ‘engaged citizens’ are essentially aware of the frightening data and hence they do not understand how authorities and health agencies do not seem that much alarmed. We have performed a literature search over an approximately two year period on in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and found that 85% of the papers indeed reported adverse bio effects. However, many of the papers are deficient in one or many ways and are not seldom published in non-specialized journals with poor quality control. Looking at specialized peer reviewed scientific journals the number of papers reporting bio effects drops to about 50%. From these many report only minor (not necessarily adverse) effects, while others report effects at high exposure levels usually not found in our daily life. This explains the more reassuring attitude of expert groups and authorities. It should be realized yet that lack of consistency in scientific data does not means lack of effect and that a simple application of the precautionary approach is still needed.