Search

Introduction: Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientificpublishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education,peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of theirpeers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for juniorclinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues’ work. In thisarticle, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty membersinterested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. Methods: The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM)Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted anumber of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guestexperts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a listof 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship groupengaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers thatbest described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. Results: We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorshipgroup’s top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize thesepapers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion: We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development fornovice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papersthat may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergothe peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn.

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.

BACKGROUND: Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website.OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.METHODS: Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy.RESULTS: FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical.CONCLUSION: There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias).

A Kuhnian approach to research assessment requires us to consider that the important scientific breakthroughs that drive scientific progress are infrequent and that the progress of science does not depend on normal research. Consequently, indicators of research performance based on the total number of papers do not accurately measure scientific progress. Similarly, those universities with the best reputations in terms of scientific progress differ widely from other universities in terms of the scale of investments made in research and in the higher concentrations of outstanding scientists present, but less so in terms of the total number of papers or citations. This study argues that indicators for the 1% high-citation tail of the citation distribution reveal the contribution of universities to the progress of science and provide quantifiable justification for the large investments in research made by elite research universities. In this tail, which follows a power low, the number of the less frequent and highly cited important breakthroughs can be predicted from the frequencies of papers in the upper part of the tail. This study quantifies the false impression of excellence produced by multinational papers, and by other types of papers that do not contribute to the progress of science. Many of these papers are concentrated in and dominate lists of highly cited papers, especially in lower-ranked universities. The h-index obscures the differences between higher- and lower-ranked universities because the proportion of h-core papers in the 1% high-citation tail is not proportional to the value of the h-index.

Background: The concept of innovation is increasingly employed in policy papers in Norway and internationally. While the meaning of the concept is scarcely reflected on in those documents, its use mostly implies positive connotations with regard to possible benefits for healthcare and other welfare areas. Aim: The aim of this article is to investigate the use and possible consequences of the concept of innovation in relation to older people’s care in recent policy papers, with special attention to one particular paper. Methods: A qualitative document analysis inspired by narrative theory is employed, exploring how the concept of innovation is used and contextualised in a recent influential academic narrative by Kåre Hagen and co-workers, highlighting prominent traits of the narrative by contrasting it with an older and different academic narrative by Michel Foucault. Findings: The Hagen narrative, which became part and parcel of a dominant Norwegian political narrative and also echoes prominent messages of recent European Union documents, features terms that signal positive aspects and promises of innovation in general, and technology in health and care in particular. To the extent that possible negative outcomes are dealt with, they appear as result of unfortunate contextual factors such as a lack of planning, insufficient organisational frames and fragmented systems of financing. Foucault’s narrative, by contrast, more than hints at possible darker sides of processes and products of innovation. While the first narrative mainly offers answers, the latter to a larger extent pose questions. Conclusion: The intended and potential audiences of the two narratives are very different: academics and students for the older one, and politicians, decision makers and the general public for the recent one. However, both narratives are as much about what they omit as what they select, and about words and concepts chosen or not chosen. In both, a constructed past and future imbues the present with meaning and an invitation to act. While Hagen mainly appears to invite people to act now, Foucault seems to invite the audience to pause and to reflect – a different type of action. Implications for practice: Decision makers and practitioners in older people’s care should: • Pay attention to dominant academic and policy narratives dealing with their own practice • Reflect on the prevailing concept of innovation and on justifications for processes of innovation • Reflect on predominant ideas of innovation in health and care, including technological innovation, and its possible implications for care work International Practice Development Journal Online journal of FoNS in association with the IPDC and PcP-ICoP (ISSN 2046-9292) Working together to develop practice PcP-ICoP 2 © The Authors 2020 International Practice Development Journal 10 (Suppl) [2] fons.org/library/journal-ipdj-home • Reflect on how present narratives of innovation may influence their ideas of what is important in care work • Hasten slowly or pause when invited to engage in processes where the explicit aim is innovation • Realise that facilitation skills must include the ability to value team experiences, recognise learning needs, provide feedback and participate in finding solutions in the moment • View flexibility as important in terms of how new knowledge can be used in person-centred ways, notably in attempts to reduce the use of restraint in dementia care

Objective: Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting. Methods: Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded. Results: A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0–7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0–2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p =0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p

Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and non-beneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [1]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [2]. There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes – a “core outcomes set” – for all trials in a specific clinical area [1]. Recognising that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women’s health have come together to support The CROWN (CoRe Outcomes in WomeN’s health) Initiative (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Aims of The CROWN Initiative. Development of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynaecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working towards core data sets for all medical specialties [3]. Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods [1]. The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future. Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to The CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed below. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions which describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated. Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (www.comet-initiative.org): “The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well”. We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating. Producing, disseminating and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice.

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one's peers is a well-recognised and long-standing method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. “Peer review”, as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review?

Informal caregivers have a leading role when implementing health care services for people with cognitive disorders living at home. This study aims to examine the current evidence for interventions with dual satisfaction with health care services for people with cognitive disorders and their caregivers. Original papers with quantitative and mixed method designs were extracted from two databases, covering years 2009–2018. Thirty-five original papers reported on satisfaction with health care services. The International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) was used to classify the interventions. Most interventions had a home-based approach (80%). Reduction in caregiver depression was the outcome measure with the highest level of satisfaction. Interventions to reduce depression or increase cognitive performance in persons with cognitive disorders gave the least satisfaction. Satisfaction of both caregivers and persons with cognitive disorders increased their use of services. In the ICHI, nearly 50% of the interventions were classified as activities and participation. A limited number of interventions have a positive effect on satisfaction of both the persons with cognitive disorders and the caregiver. It is important to focus on interventions that will benefit both simultaneously. More research is needed with a clear definition of satisfaction and the use of the ICHI guidelines. This work was supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden; and the Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet–Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway.

Background Obesity is a global epidemic with profound consequences for individuals and societies. Physical exercise is important to weight reduction and weight loss maintenance. However, results on what the most effective type of exercise are unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of various exercise modalities with and without caloric restriction on body composition and metabolic health outcomes in overweight and obese adults. Methods We will perform a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase (via Ovid) and CENTRAL (through the Cochrane Library). Relevant papers will be screened in two stages: first, by title and abstract and then the full text of the remaining papers. Two reviewers will screen all the studies, and any disagreements will be discussed with and resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed using a pre-piloted form. A network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment effect estimates will be conducted if adequate data are available. The quality of the evidence will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Discussion The results of this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will identify whether any exercise modality should be preferred for overweight and obese adults, as well as assess the quality of the evidence. This knowledge has potential importance for clinicians and patients. © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

The landscape of scholarly writing, publishing, and university promotion can be complex and challenging. Mentorship may be limited. To be successful it is important to understand the key components of writing and publishing. In this article, we provide expert consensus recommendations on four key challenges faced by junior faculty: writing the paper; selecting contributors and the importance of authorship order; journal selection and indexing; and responding to critiques. After reviewing this paper, the reader should have an enhanced understanding of these challenges and strategies to successfully address them.

The language that scientists use to frame biological invasions may reveal inherent bias—including how data are interpreted. A frequent critique of invasion biology is the use of value-laden language that may indicate context bias. Here we use a systematic study of language and interpretation in papers drawn from invasion biology to evaluate whether there is a link between the framing of papers and the interpretation of results. We also examine any trends in context bias in biological invasion research. We examined 651 peer-reviewed invasive species competition studies and implemented a rigorous systematic review to examine bias in the presentation and interpretation of native and invasive competition in invasion biology. We predicted that bias in the presentation of invasive species is increasing, as suggested by several authors, and that bias against invasive species would result in misinterpreting their competitive dominance in correlational observational studies compared to causative experimental studies. We indeed found evidence of bias in the presentation and interpretation of invasive species research; authors often introduced research with invasive species in a negative context and study results were interpreted against invasive species more in correlational studies. However, we also found a distinct decrease in those biases since the mid-2000s. Given that there have been several waves of criticism from scientists both inside and outside invasion biology, our evidence suggests that the subdiscipline has somewhat self-corrected apparent biases.

Background The introduction of the national health insurance scheme (NHIS) in Ghana in 2003 significantly contributed to improved health services utilization and health outcomes. However, stagnating active membership, reports of poor quality health care rendered to NHIS-insured clients and cost escalations have raised concerns on the operational and financial sustainability of the scheme. This paper reviewed peer reviewed articles and grey literature on the sustainability challenges and prospects of the NHIS in Ghana. Methods Electronic search was done for literature published between 2003–2016 on the NHIS and its sustainability in Ghana. A total of 66 publications relevant to health insurance in Ghana and other developing countries were retrieved from Cochrane, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Googlescholar for initial screening. Out of this number, 31 eligible peer reviewed articles were selected for final review based on specific relevance to the Ghanaian context. Results Ability of the NHIS to continue its operations in Ghana is threatened financially and operationally by factors such as: cost escalation, possible political interference, inadequate technical capacity, spatial distribution of health facilities and health workers, inadequate monitoring mechanisms, broad benefits package, large exemption groups, inadequate client education, and limited community engagement. Moreover, poor quality care in NHIS-accredited health facilities potentially reduces clients’ trust in the scheme and consequently decreases (re)enrolment rates. These sustainability challenges were reviewed and discussed in this paper. Conclusions The NHIS continues to play a critical role towards attaining universal health coverage in Ghana albeit confronted by challenges that could potentially collapse the scheme. Averting this possible predicament will largely depend on concerted efforts of key stakeholders such as health insurance managers, service providers, insurance subscribers, policy makers and political actors.

To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers’ biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity and gender. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews in one behavioral ecology journal (Behavioral Ecology, BE), we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper published for 2010–2018 in that journal compared to four other journals with single-blind reviews but similar subject matter and impact factors. While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total in all journals, the double-blind journal (BE) did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (BE and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis) for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review no longer benefits female authors and we discuss the pros and cons of the double-blind reviewing process based on our findings.

Ratings are present in many areas of assessment including peer review of research proposals and journal articles, teacher observations, university admissions and selection of new hires. One feature present in any rating process with multiple raters is that different raters often assign different scores to the same assessee, with the potential for bias and inconsistencies related to rater or assessee covariates. This paper analyzes disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants to teaching positions using applicant data from Spokane Public Schools. We first test for biases in rating while accounting for measures of teacher applicant qualifications and quality. Then, we develop model-based inter-rater reliability (IRR) estimates that allow us to account for various sources of measurement error, the hierarchical structure of the data, and to test whether covariates, such as applicant status, moderate IRR. We find that applicants external to the district receive lower ratings for job applications compared to internal applicants. This gap in ratings remains significant even after including measures of qualifications and quality such as experience, state licensure scores, or estimated teacher value added. With model-based IRR, we further show that consistency between raters is significantly lower when rating external applicants. We conclude the paper by discussing policy implications and possible applications of our model-based IRR estimate for hiring and selection practices in and out of the teacher labor market.

Over the last few decades, the institutionalisation of quantitative research evaluations has created incentives for scholars to publish as many papers as possible. This paper assesses the effects of such incentives on individual researchers’ scientific impact, by analysing the relationship between their number of articles and their proportion of highly cited papers. In other words, does the share of an author’s top 1% most cited papers increase, remain stable, or decrease as his/her total number of papers increase? Using a large dataset of disambiguated researchers (N = 28,078,476) over the 1980–2013 period, this paper shows that, on average, the higher the number of papers a researcher publishes, the higher the proportion of these papers are amongst the most cited. This relationship is stronger for older cohorts of researchers, while decreasing returns to scale are observed for recent cohorts. On the whole, these results suggest that for established researchers, the strategy of publishing as many papers as possible did not yield lower shares of highly cited publications, but such a pattern is not always observed for younger scholars.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. AMEE MedEdPublish was launched two years ago as a new outlet for scholarship in medical education (Hays, 2016). The on-line journal format broke new ground in a context where the proportion of papers submitted to medical education journals achieving publication was falling sharply. All academic journals face challenges obtaining sufficient reviews to make sound judgements about the quality of the scholarship. Indeed, a substantial proportion of submitted papers are now rejected prior to reviews being invited. Further, while review processes are becoming increasingly open, concerns remain about the potential for various forms of bias in reviews (Smith, 2006). Authors may be confused with editorial decisions to reject manuscripts, despite positive peer reviews. These potential helpful trails of original submission, reviews, feedback, discussion and revision are generally hidden from the readership.MedEdPublish has taken the approach of conducting initial, 'light touch' reviewing by editors, rapid on-line publication and facilitating open, 'live' discussion between reviewers, authors and the general readership on the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. Two years after implementation, it is timely to review the initial phase, explain the revised editorial management process and provide information about the software that is being introduced with this issue.

The "publish or perish" incentive drives many researchers to increase the quantity of their papers at the cost of quality. Lowering quality increases the number of false positive errors which is a key cause of the reproducibility crisis. We adapted a previously published simulation of the research world where labs that produce many papers are more likely to have "child" labs that inherit their characteristics. This selection creates a competitive spiral that favours quantity over quality. To try to halt the competitive spiral we added random audits that could detect and remove labs with a high proportion of false positives, and also improved the behaviour of "child" and "parent" labs who increased their effort and so lowered their probability of making a false positive error. Without auditing, only 0.2% of simulations did not experience the competitive spiral, defined by a convergence to the highest possible false positive probability. Auditing 1.35% of papers avoided the competitive spiral in 71% of simulations, and auditing 1.94% of papers in 95% of simulations. Audits worked best when they were only applied to established labs with 50 or more papers compared with labs with 25 or more papers. Adding a ±20% random error to the number of false positives to simulate peer reviewer error did not reduce the audits' efficacy. The main benefit of the audits was via the increase in effort in "child" and "parent" labs. Audits improved the literature by reducing the number of false positives from 30.2 per 100 papers to 12.3 per 100 papers. Auditing 1.94% of papers would cost an estimated $15.9 million per year if applied to papers produced by National Institutes of Health funding. Our simulation greatly simplifies the research world and there are many unanswered questions about if and how audits would work that can only be addressed by a trial of an audit.

The exposure to Non-Ionizing-Electromagnetic Fields (NI-EMFs) is often indicated as a cofactor responsible for the fertility reduction, which has been described in recent years. Despite the great interest in this topic and the research effort in exploring it, to date, there are no reliable data. Therefore, we carried out a scientometric analysis of the scientific literature published in peer reviewed Journals concerning this topic to better understand the reasons of this partial failure. To this aim, we identified and analysed 104 papers, published in last 26 years in peer-reviewed Journals, present in ISI Web of Knowledge Core Collection. Then, we analysed the impact of the Journals in which the papers were published as well as that of the single papers, the paper citation dynamics, the keywords citation busts, the geographical localization of citations and the co-authorship dynamics of the Authors. As a result, we found that different animal models (rodent, rabbit, guinea pig, and swine) and different experimental approaches (epidemiological vs. experimental studies) have the same impact, highlighting the lack of universally adopted standard in research activity. The analysis of the temporal trend in keywords and the high differences in citations between the different countries (also in those belonging to the same geographical and socio-economical area) pointed out the difficulties in approaching this branch of study. Lastly, it was evident that the Authors did not behave as a connected community, but as unconnected clusters of very small size. In conclusion, based on the results of our analysis, we think that important efforts must be undertaken to adopt more standardized models and to improve the research quality and the information exchange within the scientific community, with the aim of improving the reliability and usefulness of the results of research regarding the effect of NI-EMFs on fertility.

Innovation systems are sometimes referred to as complex systems, something that is intuitively understood but poorly defined. A complex system dynamically evolves in non-linear ways giving it unique properties that distinguish it from other systems. In particular, a common signature of complex systems is scale-invariant emergent properties. A scale-invariant property can be identified because it is solely described by a power law function, f(x) = kx^α, where the exponent, α, is a measure of scale-invariance. The focus of this paper is to describe and illustrate that innovation systems have properties of a complex adaptive system. In particular scale-invariant emergent properties indicative of their complex nature that can be quantified and used to inform public policy. The global research system is an example of an innovation system. Peer-reviewed publications containing knowledge are a characteristic output. Citations or references to these articles are an indirect measure of the impact the knowledge has on the research community. Peer-reviewed papers indexed in Scopus and in the Web of Science were used as data sources to produce measures of sizes and impact. These measures are used to illustrate how scale-invariant properties can be identified and quantified. It is demonstrated that the distribution of impact has a reasonable likelihood of being scale-invariant with scaling exponents that tended toward a value of less than 3.0 with the passage of time and decreasing group sizes. Scale-invariant correlations are shown between the evolution of impact and size with time and between field impact and sizes at points in time. The recursive or self-similar nature of scale-invariance suggests that any smaller innovation system within the global research system is likely to be complex with scale-invariant properties too. This record was migrated from the OpenDepot repository service in June, 2017 before shutting down.

Objective: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists’ careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. Methods: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here. Results: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific “impact” rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists. Conclusions: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations., GMS German Medical Science; 12:Doc11; ISSN 1612-3174

Publications are essential for sharing knowledge, and career advancement. Writing a research paper is a challenge. Most graduate programmes in medicine do not offer hands-on training in writing and publishing in scientific journals. Beginners find the art and science of scientific writing a daunting task. ‘How to write a scientific paper?, Is there a sure way to successful publication ?’ are the frequently asked questions. This paper aims to answer these questions and guide a beginner through the process of planning, writing, and correction of manuscripts that attract the readers and satisfies the peer reviewers. A well-structured paper in lucid and correct language that is easy to read and edit, and strictly follows the instruction to the authors from the editors finds favour from the readers and avoids outright rejection. Making right choice of journal is a decision critical to acceptance. Perseverance through the peer review process is the road to successful publication.

The authors would like to thank Rodrigo Costas and Antonio Callaba de Roa for their helpful comments in previous version of this paper as well as the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments. We would also like to thank Bryan J. Robinson for revising the text. Nicolas Robinson-García is currently supported with a FPU grant from the Spanish government, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad., Background: The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. Methods and materials: We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. Results: 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Discussion: Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas

The body of science evaluating the potential impacts of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) has grown significantly in recent years, although many data gaps remain. Still, a broad empirical understanding of the impacts is beginning to emerge amidst a swell of research. The present categorical assessment provides an overview of the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2009–2015 as it relates to the potential impacts of UNGD on public health, water quality, and air quality. We have categorized all available original research during this time period in an attempt to understand the weight and direction of the scientific literature. Our results indicate that at least 685 papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are relevant to assessing the impacts of UNGD. 84% of public health studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health outcomes; 69% of water quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or atmospheric concentrations. This paper demonstrates that the weight of the findings in the scientific literature indicates hazards and elevated risks to human health as well as possible adverse health outcomes associated with UNGD. There are limitations to this type of assessment and it is only intended to provide a snapshot of the scientific knowledge based on the available literature. However, this work can be used to identify themes that lie in or across studies, to prioritize future research, and to provide an empirical foundation for policy decisions.

BackgroundRecent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process.Methods and FindingsBased on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 indexfrom Google Scholar.ConclusionsThe tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Impact factors are currently the bibliometric index most used for evaluating scientific journals. However, the way in which they are used, for instance concerning the study or journal types analyzed, can markedly interfere with estimate reliability. This study aimed to analyze the citation distribution pattern in three Brazilian journals of general medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a descriptive study based on numbers of citations of scientific studies published by three Brazilian journals of general medicine. METHODS: The journals analyzed were São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. This survey used data available from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) platform, from which the total number of papers published in each journal in 2007-2008 and the number of citations of these papers in 2009 were obtained. From these data, the citation distribution was derived and journal impact factors (average number of citations) were estimated. These factors were then compared with those directly available from the ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). RESULTS: Respectively, 134, 203 and 192 papers were published by these journals during the period analyzed. The observed citation distributions were highly skewed, such that many papers had few citations and a small percentage had many citations. It was not possible to identify any specific pattern for the most cited papers or to exactly reproduce the JCR impact factors. CONCLUSION: Use of measures like "impact factors", which characterize citations through averages, does not adequately represent the citation distribution in the journals analyzed. CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: O fator de impacto é atualmente o índice bibliométrico mais utilizado para a avaliação de revistas científicas. No entanto, as condições de seu uso, por exemplo, em relação ao tipo de estudos ou revistas analisadas, podem interferir significativamente com a confiabilidade de suas estimativas. Este trabalho teve como objetivo estudar o padrão de distribuição de citações em três periódicos brasileiros de medicina geral. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, baseado nos números de citações de trabalhos científicos publicados por três revistas brasileiras de Medicina Geral. MÉTODOS: As revistas analisadas foram São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics e Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. A pesquisa utilizou-se de dados disponibilizados pela plataforma do Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), da qual foram obtidos o total de publicações de cada revista no período de 2007-2008 e o número de citações a esses trabalhos em 2009. A distribuição de citações e os fatores de impacto (média do número de citações) para cada revista foram estimados a partir desses dados, e os fatores de impacto assim obtidos foram comparados aos fornecidos diretamente pelo ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). RESULTADOS: No período, foram publicados respectivamente 134, 203 e 192 artigos pelas revistas analisadas. Observou-se que a distribuição das citações a esses artigos é altamente enviesada, com um grande número de trabalhos pouco citados e um pequeno percentual com muitas citações. Não foi possível identificar um padrão específico para os trabalhos mais citados ou reproduzir exatamente os fatores de impacto JCR. CONCLUSÃO: O uso de medidas como "fatores de impacto" que caracterizam citações por meio de médias não representa adequadamente a distribuição de citações nas revistas analisadas.

Animal models of human pathologies, including naturally occurring, induced, or engineered animals, are valuable tools for understanding the physiopathology of the disease and discovering novel therapeutic targets and drugs. In fact, although scientific research has always relied on the use of cell cultures, information that is obtained through in vitro studies can be extrapolated to the biomedical research only when analyzed within a complex organism with metabolic functioning. Therefore, one avenue holding tremendous potential to find therapies against human diseases is the use of intact living systems, where complex biological processes can be examined. However, all animal models of human disease have embedded limitations. Some of these limitations are due to the differences between animals and humans. The normal anatomy and physiology of an organ can differ among species. Furthermore, certain species may not be suitable for modelling some aspects of human disease. Moreover, most laboratory animals are kept in highly controlled environments with limited exposure to environmental pathogens that may affect innate responses to pathological processes. Finally, while inbreeding has the advantage of producing genetically identical offspring leading to highly reproducible experimental findings, it also may produce strain-specific phenotypes that are not relevant outside of that strain. Despite all these limitations, there are still many advantages in animal studies. As any clinical investigator is well aware, the rate of human studies is slow, the majority of human tissues is not routinely accessible for research purposes, and there is a very limited opportunity for interventional studies. By contrast, large numbers of animals (especially rodents) can be bred and studied in short time periods, interventional studies are easy to do, and established and emerging tools for targeted manipulation of levels of gene expression facilitate insight into the function of mediators in both health and disease. In this special issue, we collected original research articles as well as review articles describing researches in which animal models, ranging from small vertebrates to large animals, have been used for either understanding the molecular events underlying a disease or for improving therapy in various fields of medicine (immunology, neurology, cardiovascular, oncology, etc.). On the one hand, a large group of papers describe animal models of human diseases and how they have allowed gaining a deeper insight to their pathogenesis. On the other hand, another group of papers describe the usefulness of animal models for improving the diagnosis of a disease and the development of new therapeutic strategies. The goal of this special issue is to familiarize the reader with the commonly used animal models of human diseases. The strengths and limitations of the various models have been discussed as have been the degree to which individual models mimic human disease. It is our hope that this special issue will serve as a resource for biomedical investigators at all levels, both those engaged in animal research and those seeking to understand the literature. We sincerely appreciate the outstanding contributions of all the authors and anonym reviewers for their enthusiasm and hard working. We extend our whole-hearted thanks to the Editorial Board for agreeing to publish these papers as a cluster in this special issue and for facilitating efficiency and rigor in the peer review process. Monica Fedele Oreste Gualillo Andrea Vecchione

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background: In some countries every citizen has the right to obtain a designated general practitioner. However, each individual may have preferences that cannot be fulfilled due to shortages of some kind. The questions raised in this paper are: To what extent can we expect that preferences are fulfilled when the patients “compete” for entry on the lists of practitioners? What changes can we expect under changing conditions? A particular issue explored in the paper is when the majority of women prefer a female doctor and there is a shortage of female doctors. Findings: The analysis is done on the macro level by the so called gravity model and on the micro level by recent theories of benefit efficient population behaviour, partly developed by two of the authors. A major finding is that the number of patients wanting a doctor of the underrepresented gender is less important than the strength of their preferences as determining factor for the benefit efficient allocation. Conclusions: We were able to generate valuable insights to the questions asked and to the dynamics of benefit efficient allocations. The approach is quite general and can be applied in a variety of contexts.

Assessing an individual's research impact on the basis of a transparent algorithm is an important task for evaluation and comparison purposes. Besides simple but also inaccurate indices such as counting the mere number of publications or the accumulation of overall citations, and highly complex but also overwhelming full-range publication lists in their raw format, Hirsch (2005) introduced a single figure cleverly combining different approaches. The so-called h-index has undoubtedly become the standard in scientometrics of individuals' research impact (note: in the present paper I will always use the term “research impact” to describe the research performance as the logic of the paper is based on the h-index, which quantifies the specific “impact” of, e.g., researchers, but also because the genuine meaning of impact refers to quality as well). As the h-index reflects the number h of papers a researcher has published with at least h citations, the index is inherently positively biased towards senior level researchers. This might sometimes be problematic when predictive tools are needed for assessing young scientists' potential, especially when recruiting early career positions or equipping young scientists' labs. To be compatible with the standard h-index, the proposed index integrates the scientist's research age (Carbon_h-factor) into the h-index, thus reporting the average gain of h-index per year. Comprehensive calculations of the Carbon_h-factor were made for a broad variety of four research-disciplines (economics, neuroscience, physics and psychology) and for researchers performing on three high levels of research impact (substantial, outstanding and epochal) with ten researchers per category. For all research areas and output levels we obtained linear developments of the h-index demonstrating the validity of predicting one's later impact in terms of research impact already at an early stage of their career with the Carbon_h-factor being approx. 0.4, 0.8, and 1.5 for substantial, outstanding and epochal researchers, respectively.

Background High predictive validity – that is, a strong association between the outcome of peer review (usually, reviewers' ratings) and the scientific quality of a manuscript submitted to a journal (measured as citations of the later published paper) – does not as a rule suffice to demonstrate the usefulness of peer review for the selection of manuscripts. To assess usefulness, it is important to include in addition the base rate (proportion of submissions that are fundamentally suitable for publication) and the selection rate (the proportion of submissions accepted). Methodology/Principal Findings Taking the example of the high-impact journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we present a general approach for determining the usefulness of peer reviews for the selection of manuscripts for publication. The results of our study show that peer review is useful: 78% of the submissions accepted by AC-IE are correctly accepted for publication when the editor's decision is based on one review, 69% of the submissions are correctly accepted for publication when the editor's decision is based on two reviews, and 65% of the submissions are correctly accepted for publication when the editor's decision is based on three reviews. Conclusions/Significance The paper points out through what changes in the selection rate, base rate or validity coefficient a higher success rate (utility) in the AC-IE selection process could be achieved., PLoS ONE, 5 (6), ISSN:1932-6203

Background: Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear. Methodology/Principal Findings: We find that papers authored and ‘‘Contributed’’ by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are ‘‘Communicated’’ for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations. Conclusion/Significance: Our findings suggest that PNAS ‘‘Contributed’’ papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy’s success.

Background The rise of electronic publishing [1], preprint archives, blogs, and wikis is raising concerns among publishers, editors, and scientists about the present day relevance of academic journals and traditional peer review [2]. These concerns are especially fuelled by the ability of search engines to automatically identify and sort information [1]. It appears that academic journals can only remain relevant if acceptance of research for publication within a journal allows readers to infer immediate, reliable information on the value of that research. Methodology/Principal Findings Here, we systematically evaluate the effectiveness of journals, through the work of editors and reviewers, at evaluating unpublished research. We find that the distribution of the number of citations to a paper published in a given journal in a specific year converges to a steady state after a journal-specific transient time, and demonstrate that in the steady state the logarithm of the number of citations has a journal-specific typical value. We then develop a model for the asymptotic number of citations accrued by papers published in a journal that closely matches the data. Conclusions/Significance Our model enables us to quantify both the typical impact and the range of impacts of papers published in a journal. Finally, we propose a journal-ranking scheme that maximizes the efficiency of locating high impact research.

Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the "true" ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are.

I am in complete agreement with the suggestion by Matthew Falagas [1] that a unique author identification number (UAIN) would represent a major improvement for the use of databases of scientific publications. In this regard, I perceive that he has not mentioned several other important advantages that a UAIN system would provide, and that are worth pointing to: 1. When looking up someone's publications, the fact that the last name of a given person can vary from one paper to another can be as much of a problem as that of multiple authors with the same name. For example, these variations include women who change their last name after getting married (or divorced), middle initials that are sometimes included or omitted, translations from non-Roman alphabets that result in variable spellings, and people with last names composed of several terms that can sometimes appear in databases as split or truncated. 2. Contrarily to M. Falagas, I do not see any good reason why a UAIN system could not be retroactive. It is clearly in every scientist's interest to facilitate the job of other people who want to look up their work. I therefore believe that authors could be asked to register for a UAIN, and to validate their list of publications themselves, retroactively. Even for the most productive scientists, this would take only a few minutes, and the fact that they had registered for a UAIN allowing users to trace their whole list of publications could then be indicated in the display of search results from the various bibliographic databases. I also do not see any reason for “hiding” this UAIN. I suggest that it could be designed to be quite simple to remember and to communicate to others, for example: the first four or five letters of the last name followed by the initial of the first name followed by the year of first scientific publication followed by an incremental number depending on order of registration (my UAIN would be JOLY-E-89-01). It would therefore be something quite comparable in length and spirit to a car's licence plate and, like UK licence plates, it would provide an interesting clue regarding the seniority of its bearer. 3. This type of UAIN would therefore provide a very simple way to assess a person's productivity. It would also provide a very useful means to assess the actual impact of their work in terms of citations, by discriminating between self-citation and citations by others. Today, most people are evaluated via the impact factor of the journals in which they have managed to publish their work, and not by the actual impact of the papers themselves. Although most scientists acknowledge that this is an extremely crude and unfair way of assessing the quality of someone's production, the impact factor lives on. By providing the simple means to track someone's bibliographic record and thus facilitate the evaluation of their productivity, I believe that the introduction of a UAIN system will not only help the scientific community to exploit bibliographic databases more efficiently, but also represent a major step towards getting rid of the despotic domination of the dreaded impact factors of journals as a means to evaluate the quality of scientific papers.

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.

Background Although peer reviewers play a key role in the manuscript review process, their roles and tasks are poorly defined. Clarity around this issue is important as it may influence the quality of peer reviewer reports. This scoping review explored the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. Methods Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from inception up to May 2017. There were no date and language restrictions. We also searched for grey literature. Studies with statements mentioning roles, tasks and competencies pertaining to the role of peer reviewers in biomedical journals were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and selection. Relevant statements were extracted, collated and classified into themes. Results After screening 2763 citations and 600 full-text papers, 209 articles and 13 grey literature sources were included. A total of 1426 statements related to roles were extracted, resulting in 76 unique statements. These were grouped into 13 emergent themes: proficient experts in their field (3 items), dutiful/altruistic towards scientific community (7 items), familiar with journal (2 items), unbiased and ethical professionals (18 items), self-critical professionals (4 items), reliable professionals (7 items), skilled critics (15 items), respectful communicators (6 items), gatekeepers (2 items), educators (2 items), advocates for author/editor/reader (3 items) and advisors to editors (2 items). Roles that do not fall within the remit of peer reviewers were also identified (5 items). We also extracted 2026 statements related to peer reviewers’ tasks, resulting in 73 unique statements. These were grouped under six themes: organisation and approach to reviewing (10 items), make general comments (10 items), assess and address content for each section of the manuscript (36 items), address ethical aspects (5 items), assess manuscript presentation (8 items) and provide recommendations (4 items). Conclusions Peer reviewers are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks for biomedical journals. These warrant further discussion and clarification in order not to overburden these key actors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The importance of peer reviewing articles submitted to scientific journals is a subject that conferences and journals regularly revisit. In general such visits are brief. Although a few horror stories abound: ‘competitor holds up acceptance of paper to submit his own and so get priority’ or ‘competitor pours sufficient scorn on a good paper to darken its worth.’

IntroductionBladder cancer (BC) is the 10th common cancer worldwide and ranks seventh in Nigeria. This scoping review aims to identify the gaps in clinical care and research of BC in Nigeria as part of the development of a larger national research programme aiming to improve outcomes and care of BC.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted according to Arksey and O’Malley scoping review methodology framework. The following electronic databases will be searched: Medline (using the PubMed interface), Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid), Cochrane library and Open Grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and subsequently screen full-text studies for inclusion, any lack of consensus will be discussed with a third reviewer. Any study providing insight into the epidemiology or treatment pathway of BC (RCTs, observations, case series, policy paper) will be included. A data chart will be used to extract relevant data from the included studies. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A consultation process will be carried out with a multidisciplinary team of Nigerian healthcare professionals, patients and scientists.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. By highlighting the key gaps in the literature, this review can provide direction for future research and clinical guidelines in Nigeria (and other low-income and middle-income countries), where BC is more prevalent due to local risk factors and healthcare settings.

Objective To compare expert assessment with bibliometric indicators as tools to assess the quality and importance of scientific research papers. Methods and Materials Shortly after their publication in 2005, the quality and importance of a cohort of nearly 700 Wellcome Trust (WT) associated research papers were assessed by expert reviewers; each paper was reviewed by two WT expert reviewers. After 3 years, we compared this initial assessment with other measures of paper impact. Results Shortly after publication, 62 (9%) of the 687 research papers were determined to describe at least a ‘major addition to knowledge’ –6 were thought to be ‘landmark’ papers. At an aggregate level, after 3 years, there was a strong positive association between expert assessment and impact as measured by number of citations and F1000 rating. However, there were some important exceptions indicating that bibliometric measures may not be sufficient in isolation as measures of research quality and importance, and especially not for assessing single papers or small groups of research publications. Conclusion When attempting to assess the quality and importance of research papers, we found that sole reliance on bibliometric indicators would have led us to miss papers containing important results as judged by expert review. In particular, some papers that were highly rated by experts were not highly cited during the first three years after publication. Tools that link expert peer reviews of research paper quality and importance to more quantitative indicators, such as citation analysis would be valuable additions to the field of research assessment and evaluation.

This paper inquires whether reindeer herders&rsquo, traditional knowledge (TK) provides a reservoir of precaution and adaptation possibilities that may be relevant to counteract climate change. As our core example, we used the milking of reindeer&mdash, which, in some areas, was practiced up until the 1950s&ndash, 1960s&mdash, and the risk of getting foot rot disease (digital necrobacillosis, slubbo in North S&aacute, mi), caused by the bacterium Fusobacterium necrophorum. Via wounds or scratches, the bacterium creates an infection that makes the infected limb swell and, eventually, necrotize. The disease is often mortal in its final stage. Historically, female reindeer were gathered on unfenced milking meadows near herder tents or in small corrals, from early summer onward. When the soil was wet and muddy, the risk of developing digital necrobacillosis was considerable. Our sources included classical S&aacute, mi author/herder narratives, ethnographic and veterinary literature, and herder interviews. For this study, we conducted a qualitative review of the literature and carried out individual in-depth interviews with local knowledge holders. Our findings seem consistent: a documented prevention strategy was, in early summer, to move the reindeer to unused grazing land and to avoid staying too long in trampled and dirty grazing land. Contemporary climate change and winter uncertainty due to freeze&ndash, thaw cycles and ice-locked pastures challenge this type of strategy. Due to a lack of pasture resources, typical actions today include the increased use of supplementary feeding, which involves more gathering and handling of reindeer, higher animal density, challenging hygienic conditions, and stress, which all contribute to increased risks of contracting and transmitting diseases.

Background: Behavioral change is the key to alter individuals’ lifestyle from sedentary to active. The aim was to assess the feasibility of delivering a Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise programme and evaluate the delivery of the intervention by use of digital technology (eLiFE) to prevent functional decline in 61–70 year-old adults. Methods: This multicentre, feasibility randomized controlled trial was run in three countries (Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands). Out of 7,500 potential participants, 926 seniors (12%) were screened and 180 participants randomized to eLiFE (n = 61), aLiFE (n = 59), and control group (n = 60). eLiFE participants used an application on smartphones and smartwatches while aLiFE participants used traditional paper-based versions of the same lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention. Participants were followed for 12 months, with assessments at baseline, after a 6 month active trainer-supported intervention, and after a further 6 months of unsupervised continuation of the programme. Results: At 6 months, 87% of participants completed post-test, and 77% completed the final assessment at 12 months. Participants were willing to be part of the programme, with compliance and reported adherence relatively high. Despite small errors during start-up in the technological component, intervention delivery by use of technology appeared acceptable. No serious adverse events were related to the interventions. All groups improved regarding clinical outcomes over time, and complexity metrics show potential as outcome measure in young seniors. Conclusion: This feasibility RCT provides evidence that an ICT-based lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention, focusing on behavioral change, is feasible and safe for young seniors. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03065088. Registered on 14 February 2017. Copyright © 2020 Taraldsen, Mikolaizak, Maier, Mellone, Boulton, Aminian, Becker, Chiari, Follestad, Gannon, Paraschiv-Ionescu, Pijnappels, Saltvedt, Schwenk, Todd, Yang, Zacchi, van Ancum, Vereijken and Helbostad. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

With the rapid growth of Affective, Cognitive, Developmental, and Social Neuroscience, the domain of Higher Level Brain Function has become of central importance to understanding the human brain. In this Domain we welcome papers using neuroimaging, genetics, pharmacology, and other methods in studies both directly involving the human brain as well as nonhuman animals. These studies may elucidate how the brain relates to thoughts, feelings, and complex behaviour. The Higher Level Brain Function Domain will be closely coordinated with the Cognition and other related Domains to ensure that all appropriate submissions are handled rapidly and effectively. As with other Domains, we hope to ensure that the Higher Level Brain Function Domain is a rapid communication environment for papers that have been thoroughly peer reviewed. While not all papers can be published, we would like to be prompt, clear, and helpful in dealing with each submission. We have a large and distinguished Editorial team working on this Domain that represents a range of research interests. We hope that this is reflected in the submissions that we receive.

Scientists are increasingly dissatisfied with funding systems that rely on peer assessment and, accordingly, have suggested several proposals for reform. One of these proposals is to distribute available funds equally among all qualified researchers, with no interference from peer review. Despite its numerous benefits, such egalitarian sharing faces the objection, among others, that it would lead to an unacceptable dilution of resources. The aim of the present paper is to assess this particular objection. We estimate (for the Netherlands, the U.S. and the U.K.) how much researchers would receive were they to get an equal share of the government budgets that are currently allocated through competitive peer assessment. For the Netherlands, we furthermore estimate what researchers would receive were we to differentiate between researchers working in low-cost, intermediate-cost and high-cost disciplines. Given these estimates, we then determine what researchers could afford in terms of PhD students, Postdocs, travel and equipment. According to our results, researchers could, on average, maintain current PhD student and Postdoc employment levels, and still have at their disposal a moderate (the U.K.) to considerable (the Netherlands, U.S.) budget for travel and equipment. This suggests that the worry that egalitarian sharing leads to unacceptable dilution of resources is unjustified. Indeed, our results strongly suggest that there is room for far more egalitarian distribution of funds than happens in the highly competitive funding schemes so prevalent today.

During epidemics, the poorest part of the population usually suffers the most. Alfred Crosby noted that the norm changed during the 1918 influenza pandemic in the US: The black population (which were expected to have higher influenza morbidity and mortality) had lower morbidity and mortality than the white population during the autumn of 1918. Crosby&rsquo, s explanation for this was that black people were more exposed to a mild spring/summer wave of influenza earlier that same year. In this paper, we review the literature from the pandemic of 1918 to better understand the crossover in the role of race on mortality. The literature has used insurance, military, survey, and routine notification data. Results show that the black population had lower morbidity, and during September, October, and November, lower mortality but higher case fatality than the white population. The results also show that the black population had lower influenza morbidity prior to 1918. The reasons for lower morbidity among the black population both at baseline and during the herald and later waves in 1918 remain unclear. Results may imply that black people had a lower risk of developing the disease given exposure, but when they did get sick, they had a higher risk of dying.

Objectives: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.Methods: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews.Results: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals.Discussion: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.

We conducted an observational study of 194 pregnant women from two different studysites in rural Cambodia. Socioeconomic and anthropometric data was obtained from the womenand their newborns. In addition, we collected blood and urine samples from the women for furtheranalyses in planned papers. There were significant differences between the two study groups forclinical outcomes. The mothers from the poorer area were shorter and weighed less at the time ofinclusion. Their babies had significantly smaller head circumferences and a lower ponderal index.Conclusion: There are significant anthropometric differences between women and their newbornsfrom two separate study sites in Cambodia. Possible associations between stunting and exposure toPersistent Toxic Substances (PTS) as organochlorines and toxic trace elements will be investigated infuture studies. ©2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Mind-wandering is omnipresent in our lives. The benefits of mind-wandering are not yet clear, but given how much time we spend mind-wandering, this mental function is likely to be important. Accordingly, it is essential to understand the neural and cognitive mechanisms of mind-wandering. In a recent study by the leading author of the present paper it was demonstrated that by applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the frontal lobes, but not sham or occipital cortex stimulation, it was possible to increase propensity of mind-wandering. The goal of the present study has been to replicate these previous findings and to extend them by examining whether changes in mind-wandering as a result of stimulation are associated with a change of meta-awareness of the attentional focus. By using a larger sample size and by conducting the experiment in a different country and language, we fully replicated the key original findings by showing that stimulation of the prefrontal cortex increased the level of mind-wandering. We also show that stimulation had no major effect on the level of meta-awareness of the attentional focus. Taken together, our results indicate that mind-wandering − probably the most internal and self-related mental function − can be modulated externally, that at least in some cases mind-wandering might not be regulated by meta-awareness, and that the frontal lobes might play a causal role in mind-wandering.

This research expands efforts to understand differences in NIH funding associated with the self-identified race and ethnicity of applicants. We collected data from 2,397 NIH Biographical Sketches submitted between FY 2003 and 2006 as part of new NIH R01 Type 1 applications to obtain detailed information on the applicants' training and scholarly activities, including publications. Using these data, we examined the association between an NIH R01 applicant's race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an R01 award. The applicant's publication history as reported in the NIH biographical sketch and the associated bibliometrics narrowed the black/white funding gap for new and experienced investigators in explanatory models. We found that black applicants reported fewer papers on their Biosketches, had fewer citations, and those that were reported appeared in journals with lower impact factors. Incorporating these measures in our models explained a substantial portion of the black/white funding gap. Although these predictors influence the funding gap, they do not fully address race/ethnicity differences in receiving a priority score.