Search

This essay thus seeks to provide further critique and clarity to the peer review process and the ways in which management of peer review is evolving. These changes occur within a context of massive growth in the knowledge production process: global trends, information technologies, and policies that encourage more people globally to take part in the research process. Associated with these global changes are stressors on the peer review process and particularly questions about who gets to be a peer reviewer and who has the right to produce knowledge under these processes. Less a formal review and analysis of peer review across LIS, this essay takes the form of an autoethnographic narrative that that seeks to draw upon the researcher’s personal observations, experience, and reflections to critically examine changes to the peer review system that are taking place.

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Despite the near-universal acceptance of the benefits of a sound peer review process (PRP), the topic of peer review remains a source of controversy among surgeons. The current PRP is plagued by heterogeneity across different hospital and institutional systems. These inconsistencies, combined with a perceived lack of fairness inherent to the PRP in some institutions, led to concerns among practicing surgeons. In this review of the relevant literature on the PRP, we attempted to provide some context and insight into the history of the PRP, its role, its shortcomings, its potential abuses, and some key requirements for its successful execution., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day. Careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders. Recent instances of lack of appropriate research ethics committee overview, or participant consent for inclusion in the research study, or a case report, resulting in retractions, emphasize the need for greater awareness regarding these ethical aspects. Authors should strive to avoid redundancy, especially for review articles, both systematic and narrative. Clinical trial registration before commencing enrolment is mandatory as per contemporary norms. Transparent declaration of authorship contributions as well as appropriate attribution of authorship are recommended, since these may help avoid subsequent authorship conflicts. Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial. Unbiased peer review is a critical part of editorial decision making; recent instances of peer review fraud have resulted in numerous retractions of scientific papers. Any reproduction of text, figures, or tables should be with due attribution to source, and after seeking permission of the copyright holder. Citations to published work should be relevant and diverse. Research assessment should rely on the assessment of quality of published work, rather than mere citation analyses. Authors should beware predatory, low-quality journals, and utilize social media channels to ethically promote their research with due consideration to privacy and copyright. Rheumatology societies should collaborate to develop guidelines for ethical research reporting, and educate young scientists regarding these principles.

Acknowledgements in scientific articles can be described as miscellaneous, their content ranging from pre-formulated financial disclosure statements to personal testimonies of gratitude. To improve understanding of the context and various uses of expressions found in acknowledgements, this study analyses their content qualitatively. The most frequent noun phrases from a Web of Science acknowledgements corpus were analysed to generate 13 categories. When 3,754 acknowledgement sentences were manually coded into the categories, three distinct axes emerged: the contributions, the disclaimers, and the authorial voice. Acknowledgements constitute a space where authors can detail the division of labour within collaborators of a research project. Results also show the importance of disclaimers as part of the current scholarly communication apparatus, an aspect which was not highlighted by previous analyses and typologies of acknowledgements. Alongside formal disclaimers and acknowledgements of various contributions, there seems to remain a need for a more personal space where the authors can speak for themselves, in their own name, on matters they judge worth mentioning., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research., Competing Interests: IJJA is Senior Vice-President of Research Integrity for Elsevier. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

We consider the question of why (primarily) and how (secondarily) to perform scientific oversight of research performed by investigators with a financial conflict of interest (COI). One way to frame the trade-off of having investigators with financial COI participate in research is through a decision rule: " Our institution is willing for financially conflicted investigators to participate in research around their intellectual property if (a) the science is likely to be significantly better with their participation (or if other significant benefits accrue); and (b) the COI can be adequately managed ". A key component of COI management is the demonstration that the underlying science is sufficiently rigorous and transparent, and in turn, a scientific oversight plan is a key element of that demonstration. Scientific oversight plans should be proactively generated, by individuals (i.e., scientific reviewers) who are independent and expert, and they should assess the rigor and transparency of the research, in a fashion which is fair and efficient. Abbreviations: COI: conflict of interest; SOP: scientific oversight plan.

Herein, we discuss a novel way to knit current life sciences publishing structures together under the scope of a single life science journal that would countermand many of the issues faced in current publishing paradigms. Such issues include, but are not limited to, publication fees, subscription fees, impact factor, and publishing in more "glamorous" journals for career health. We envision a process flow involving (i) a single, overall, life sciences journal, (ii) divided into sections headed by learned societies, (iii) to whom all scientific papers are submitted for peer review, and (iv) all accepted scientific literature would be published open access and without author publication fees. With such a structure, journal fees, the merit system of science, and unethical aspects of open access would be reformed for the better. Importantly, such a journal could leverage existing online platforms; that is to say, it is conceptually feasible. We conclude that wholly inclusive publishing paradigms can be possible. A single, open access, online, life sciences journal could solve the myriad problems associated with current publishing paradigms and would be feasible to implement.

Purpose: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gained popularity over the last decade claiming enhanced surgical precision and better joint kinematics, with peer-reviewed publications about this new technology also increasing over the past few years. The purpose of our study was to compare manuscripts about robotic-assisted UKA to those about standard UKA in terms of industry funding, author conflict of interest, scientific quality, and bibliometrics., Methods: A systematic search using PRISMA guidelines on PubMed and Google Scholar from 2012 to 2016 resulted in 45 papers where robotic technology was performed for UKA and 167 papers that UKA were performed without the assistance of a robot. Between the two groups, we compared (1) rate of manuscripts with reported conflict of interest or industry funding, (2) journal impact factor, (3) level of evidence, and (4) relative citation ratio., Results: Fifty-one percent (23/45) of robotic UKA manuscripts were industry-funded or had authors with financial conflict of interest, compared to 29% ([49/167], p < 0.01) of non-robotic UKA papers. Significantly more robotic UKA papers (24% [11/45] vs 9% [16/167), p < 0.01) were published in journals that were not assigned an impact factor by the Journal Citations Report. There was no difference in regard to bibliometrics or level of evidence., Conclusion: Manuscripts in which UKA was performed with the assistance of a robot were more likely to be industry funded or be written by authors with financial conflicts of interest and published in less prestigious journals. There were no differences in scientific quality or influence between the two groups. Readers analyzing published data should be aware of the potential conflicts of interests in order to more accurately interpret manuscripts data and conclusions.

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

Background: Family carers are an important source of care for older people. Although several studies have reported that subjective caregiver burden is related to depressive symptoms there are no systematic reviews quantifying this association., Objective: To establish the extent to which subjective caregiver burden is associated with depressive symptoms and whether this association would vary by study or care characteristics., Methods: We searched major databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and ISI Proceedings up to March 2018, and conducted a meta-analysis of included studies. Summary estimates of the association were obtained using a random-effects model to improve generalisation of findings., Results: After screening of 4,688 articles, 55 studies were included providing a total of 56 independent comparisons with a total of 9,847 carers from data across 20 countries. There was a large, positive association between subjective caregiver burden and depressive symptoms ([Formula: see text] = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.486, 0.541), with very low heterogeneity amongst individual studies (I2 = 8.6%). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences between cross-sectional or repeated measures ([Formula: see text] = 0.521; 95% CI = 0.491, 0.550; 51 samples) and longitudinal studies ([Formula: see text] = 0.454; 95% CI = 0.398, 0.508; 6 samples). We found a higher effect size for those caring for people living with dementia compared to those caring for frail older people, and stroke survivors. Carer sex, age and kinship did not change the estimate of the effect., Conclusions: Subjective caregiver burden is a significant risk factor for depressive symptoms in carers of older people and may precipitate clinical depression. Those caring for people with dementia experience greater burden. There is a need for longitudinal evaluations examining the effects of potential mediators of the association of subjective burden and depressive symptoms. Future interventions should test whether minimizing subjective burden may modify the risk of developing depression in carers of older relatives., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Rafael del-Pino-Casado was co-author of three of the included studies together with Catalina López-Martínez in one of these studies.

Introduction: The advent of open access publishing has allowed for unrestricted and rapid knowledge dissemination and can generate higher citation levels. However, the establishment of predatory journals exploits this model and may lead to publication of non-peer reviewed work., Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the characteristics and trends of indexed publications in paediatric urology. The primary outcomes were to compare open access vs non-open access publishing. The secondary outcome was to assess whether any open access publications in this cohort could be classified as predatory based on journal data basing and external peer review policies., Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase reviews were carried out for any publication using the terms 'p(a)ediatric urology' over a 5-year period (October 2012-2017). These publications were individually accessed, assessed for relevance and cross-checked using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report. Bibliometric data, journal type and access model were all individually assessed, ranked and compared using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods., Results: From an initial total of 4075 indexed publications, 2244 journal publications across 51 countries were included based on relevance, of which 611 were open access. Open access journals were significantly more likely to publish basic science/laboratory versus clinical publications (10.9% vs 3.3%). They were more likely have higher average citations/publication (17 vs. 8), but there was no difference between open and closed journal impact factors (3.1 vs. 2.7). The overall rate of open access, indexed publications that were not peer reviewed and/or included in open access databases was 6.5% DISCUSSION: The overall numbers of paediatric urological articles appearing on PubMed between 2012 and 2017 have increased by approximately 75%, while the number of open access articles has remained relatively static (25%). Researchers may prefer to publish in specific journals to disseminate results to a particular audience or fear in the current climate that an open access journal may not be considered legitimate, and possibly even predatory, thus having a negative impact on the data and the author's reputation. The impact factor status and route/method of publication may be less important., Conclusions: Open access, peer reviewed publishing allows rapid international knowledge dissemination. The exact objective definition of what constitutes a predatory journal remains controversial. We have identified a time-stable prevalence of 6.5% open access publications that could meet proposed criteria for a 'borderline/predatory journal'; however, this should not influence the decision to publish in open access journals., (Copyright © 2019 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Victorian Audit of Surgical Mortality (VASM) seeks to peer review all deaths associated with surgical care in Victoria, Australia. The effectiveness of the VASM as an educational and quality improvement tool is dependent on the accuracy of source data it receives. We aimed to examine the accuracy and quality of source data provided by the treating surgeon for peer review, and the inter-rater concordance level between the external validator findings and the treating surgeon., Methods: Of the 629 cases that completed the VASM audit second-line peer review process over a 4-year period (from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2016), a total of 32 (5%) were randomly selected for the external validation process. The blinded external validator was impartial to the VASM audit, and was provided only de-identified patient medical records. The analysis for the checked and validated data points and their concordance was determined using Gwet's agreement coefficient, which provides a stable inter-rater reliability coefficient not affected by prevalence and marginal probability., Results: The inter-rater concordance analysis suggested that there is a high level of agreement (82.9% overall) between the treating surgeon and external validator. The use of thromboembolism deterrent stockings was the only variable where agreement was poor (52.4%) with a Gwet score of 0.10 (-0.40 to 0.60)., Conclusion: The inter-rater concordance analysis results support the validity of the VASM process, which is dependent on the accuracy of data submitted by the treating surgeon., (© 2018 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Hospital system sued again over alleged peer review misconduct.

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals., Methods: After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available., Results: Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources., Conclusion: Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.

Objective: We aimed in this study to investigate views and suggestions of health field editors about the publication process and ethical problems., Materials and Methods: The study involved 42 journal editors who accepted to participate in the study. The data were collected through 70-item "Editor Views Questionnaire" which was developed by the researchers in line with the related literature., Results: The editors who participated in the study were asked about their views about the most common problems they encountered related to publication ethics; the top three problems indicated by the editors included unjustified authorship (40.5%), duplicate publication (33.3%), and falsification (26.2%). An analysis of the problems encountered in the initial evaluation stage revealed the top three issues as articles that did not follow the writing rules of the journal (33.3%), unqualified articles (30.1%), and negligence of the author(s) (14.3%). Views in relation to the problems about the referee evaluation stage included evaluations that were not completed within the time given (28.6%), insufficient importance attached to the evaluation (23.9%), and inability to find sufficient number of referees (16.7%)., Conclusion: some editors were found to encounter violation of publication ethics, to experience problems in the revision stage, and not to feel fully independent in their contribution to article publication and thus the improvement of the journal quality. Identification of journal editors' views and problems is an important step for the solution to these problems; it could thus contribute to improving the quality of publication process and journal quality., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

Objective: The intent of this article is to define predatory publishing, identify the risks and costs associated with publishing scholarship with these types of organizations and to provide recommendations for best practices how a potential author can protect themselves against predatory organizations., Methods: A thorough review of the literature concerning predatory publishing was conducted and gleaned for best practices along with the authors' experiences., Key Findings: Pharmacy scholars and researchers worldwide recognize the virtues of the open access (OA) publication system, which is intended to freely disseminate research electronically, stimulate innovation and improve access to scholarship. Both subscription-based and OA publication systems, however, have potential areas of conflicts, including coordination of the peer-review process and the potential for the publisher to capitalize on selling the commodity in a capitalistic society. The intent of OA is welcomed; however, publishers are still in a business and profits need to be made. It is by the exploitation of the model that has given rise to a small but growing subset known as predatory publishers., Conclusions: Pharmacy researchers and clinicians alike need to be aware of predatory organizations, both publishers and meeting organizers, when seeking a venue to publish their own scholarly research. Additionally, this knowledge is critical when evaluating medical literature in providing direct patient care services to assure the best available evidence is utilized., (© 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Introduction: The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn., Aim and Methods: This article proposes criteria for the conduct of reviewers and of those who select them. While commenting on new emerging models, it provides practical recommendations for improving the peer-review system, like strengthening the role of guidelines and training and supporting reviewers., Conclusions: The process of peer review is changing, it is getting more open and collaborative, but those same ethical principles which guided it from its very origin should remain untouched and be firmly consolidated. The paper highlights how the ethics of reviewing scientific publications is needed now more than ever, in particular with regard to competence, conflict of interest, willingness to discuss decisions, complete transparency and integrity., (Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants., Methods: Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently., Results: After screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly., Conclusions: There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.