Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia

Authorship and dissemination policies vary across NIH research consortia. We aimed to describe elements of real-life policies in use by eligible U01 clinical research consortia. Principal investigators of eligible, active U01 clinical research projects identified in the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database shared relevant policies. The characteristics of key policy elements, determined a priori, were reviewed and quantified, when appropriate. Twenty one of 81 research projects met search criteria and provided policies. K elements (e.g., in quotations): "manuscript proposals reviewed and approved by committee" (90%); "guidelines for acknowledgements" (86%); "writing team formation" (71%); "process for final manuscript review and approval" (71%), "responsibilities for lead author" (67%), "guidelines for other types of publications" (67%); "draft manuscript review and approval" (62%); "recommendation for number of members per consortium site" (57%); and "requirement to identify individual contributions in the manuscript" (19%). Authorship/dissemination policies for large team science research projects are highly variable. Creation of an NIH policies repository and accompanying toolkit with model language and recommended key elements could improve comprehensiveness, ethical integrity, and efficiency in team science work while reducing burden and cost on newly funded consortia and directing time and resources to scientific endeavors.

Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development.

Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods

The academic community requires not only responsible research but also responsible academic journals. An exploratory study of Chinese-language academic journals that used mixed methods found Chinese-language academic journals on the humanities and social sciences exhibiting a widespread status bias. Most of them summarily rejected submissions from junior researchers and students without paying due attention to the quality of the research itself. The main reasons for this problem are editorial department resources, the scientific research evaluation system, the editorial department culture, and the wider academic environment. This study recommends that Chinese-language academic journals join the Committee on Publication Ethics, other publishing ethics organizations, and the "Responsible Journals" program as soon as possible.

De-naturalizing the "predatory": A study of "bogus" publications at public sector universities in Pakistan

Predatory publishing has recently emerged as a menace in academia. University professors and researchers often exploit this practice for their economic gains and institutional prestige. The present study investigates such existing predatory publishing practices in Pakistani public sector universities drawing on the notion of symbolic violence. For this purpose, we analyzed 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities over the period 2017-2021. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 postgraduate students to gather their perspectives on publishing practices. The study shows that 69% of the sample papers were published in predatory journals, as identified in Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's (HEC) online journal recognition system (HJRS). Postgraduate students' insights inform the study that the students misrecognize these malpractices in academia as a problem what is referred to as "symbolic violence." Consequently, they engage in the process to increase their publications. Such publications enable both the university professors and the students to achieve the desired benefit, such as promotions, tenure, and academic degrees. We recommend that this practice must be altered at the policy level since it not only violates the HEC's standards for quality research but also damages the researchers' credibility and country's scientific reputation.

Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences.

METHODS

A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types.

RESULTS

A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients' and the general public's preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of 'publish or perish'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

No evidence that ACE2 or TMPRSS2 drive population disparity in COVID risks

Early in the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, in this journal, Hou et al. (BMC Med 18:216, 2020) interpreted public genotype data, run through functional prediction tools, as suggesting that members of particular human populations carry potentially COVID-risk-increasing variants in genes ACE2 and TMPRSS2 far more often than do members of other populations. Beyond resting on predictions rather than clinical outcomes, and focusing on variants too rare to typify population members even jointly, their claim mistook a well known artifact (that large samples reveal more of a population's variants than do small samples) as if showing real and congruent population differences for the two genes, rather than lopsided population sampling in their shared source data. We explain that artifact, and contrast it with empirical findings, now ample, that other loci shape personal COVID risks far more significantly than do ACE2 and TMPRSS2-and that variation in ACE2 and TMPRSS2 per se unlikely exacerbates any net population disparity in the effects of such more risk-informative loci.

Towards a Sustainable Future: Challenges and Opportunities for Early-Career Chemists

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable chemistry have attracted increasing attention in recent years, being of great importance to the younger generation. In this Viewpoint Article, we share how early-career chemists can contribute to the sustainable transformation of their discipline. We identify ways in which they can engage to catalyse action for change. This article does not attempt to answer questions about the most promising or pressing areas driving research and chemical innovation in the context of sustainability. Instead, we want to inspire and engage early-career chemists in pursuing sustainable actions by showcasing opportunities in education, outreach and policymaking, research culture and publishing, while highlighting existing challenges and the complexity of the topic. We want to empower early-career chemists by providing resources and ideas for engagement for a sustainable future globally. While the article focuses on students and early-career chemists, it provides insights to further stimulate the engagement of scientists from diverse backgrounds.

Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and ongoing practices of plagiarism among the journal editors of Nepal.

METHODS

This web-based questionnaire analytical cross-sectional was conducted among journal editors working across various journals in Nepal. All journal editors from NepJOL-indexed journals in Nepal who provided e-consent were included in the study using a convenience sampling technique. A final set of questionnaires was prepared using Google Forms, including six knowledge questions, three practice questions (with subsets) for authors, and four (with subsets) for editors. These were distributed to journal editors in Nepal via email, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and WhatsApp. Reminders were sent weekly, up to three times. Data analysis was done in R software. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the demographic variables, correct responses regarding knowledge, and practices related to plagiarism. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean knowledge with demographic variables. For all tests, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 147 participants completed the survey.The mean age of the participants was found to be 43.61 ± 8.91 years. Nearly all participants were aware of plagiarism, and most had heard of both Turnitin and iThenticate. Slightly more than three-fourths correctly identified that citation and referencing can avoid plagiarism. The overall mean knowledge score was 5.32 ± 0.99, with no significant differences across demographic variables. As authors, 4% admitted to copying sections of others' work without acknowledgment and reusing their own published work without proper citations. Just over one-fifth did not use plagiarism detection software when writing research articles. Fewer than half reported that their journals used authentic plagiarism detection software. Four-fifths of them suspected plagiarism in the manuscripts assigned through their journal. Three out of every five participants reported the plagiarism used in the manuscript to the respective authors. Nearly all participants believe every journal must have plagiarism-detection software.

CONCLUSIONS

Although journal editors' knowledge and practices regarding plagiarism appear to be high, they are still not satisfactory. It is strongly recommended to use authentic plagiarism detection software by the journals and editors should be adequately trained and update their knowledge about it.

Utilization of the Transparent Peer Review Policy to Train Graduate Pharmacy Students on Scientific Critique

OBJECTIVES

Recognizing the importance of training graduate students in scientific critique and peer-review, we introduced an innovative instructional strategy using the transparent peer-review policy (TPRP). This study aimed to explore students' feedback on how published peer-review reports influenced their scientific critique skills.

METHODS

We used TPRP-adopting journals' publicly available peer-review reports for MSc Pharmacy students, who analyzed real cases, including author submissions, reviewer comments, rebuttals, editorial decisions, and final publications. A reflection assignment required students to share their insights on the TPRP-adopting journals' review processes and how these influenced their scientific reviewing skills. Qualitative content analysis of the submitted reflections was conducted by two instructors not involved in developing or delivering this aspect of the course.

RESULTS

Eleven students submitted reflections on their learning experiences through this public-facing peer-review process. The analysis revealed that TPRP increased students' awareness of both the peer-review process and fundamental principles of scientific critique. Five key themes emerged: understanding research content, inspiring ideas, fostering objectivity, enriching peer-review comprehension, and evaluating transparent peer-review pros and cons. Students showed a positive attitude towards this pedagogical approach for acquiring the targeted skills.

CONCLUSION

We utilized peer-review reports from TPRP-supporting journals as an educational tool, providing training on the fundamentals of peer-review and scientific critique. This study suggests recommending TPRP-supported journal reports as a valuable educational tool for teaching scientific critique and peer-review skills.

Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis

BACKGROUND

The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.

METHODS

A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.

RESULTS

Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.

What are the key factors influencing scientific data sharing? A combined application of grounded theory and fuzzy-DEMATEL approach

Scientific data sharing (SDS) has become essential for scientific progress, technological innovation and socioeconomic development. Identifying the key influencing factors of SDS can effectively promote SDS programmes and give full play to the critical role of scientific data. This study used grounded theory and information ecology theory to construct an SDS influencing factor model that encompassed five dimensions and 28 influencing factors and followed the fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (fuzzy-DEMATEL) approach to measure and analyse the degree of influence of each influencing factor and identify the key factors. The results show that (1) there are interactions and mutual interactions between the various influencing factors of SDS, which can form a complex network system. (2) 16 influencing factors, such as data-sharing policies, data-sharing regulations and data-sharing standards, comprise the key influencing factors in SDS. (3) The optimisation path of SDS is 'Scientific Researchers' → 'Scientific Data' → 'Policy Environment' → 'Research Organisations → 'Information Technologies'. In this regard, we proposed the following management suggestions to promote the development of SDS programmes in China: focusing on researchers' subjective willingness to share, enhancing the integrated governance of scientific data, fulfilling the role of policy support and guidance, strengthening the support of research organisations and improving SDS platforms with information technology.

Development and implementation of a self-directed violence prevention training program for correctional behavioral health providers: a clinical trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Self-directed violence (SDV) comprises both suicide and self-injury and represents a pressing problem among incarcerated persons. Negative impacts of SDV in correctional settings also extend to behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) (e.g., job turnover). Correctional SDV risk assessment and management standards include staff training as part of the comprehensive approach. The Core Competency Model for Corrections (CCM-C) is a novel, evidence-informed training program for BHCs covering both clinician self-management and clinical care skills.

METHODS

This pilot trial is a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness approach. It will employ a wait-list control sequential cross-over design. Participants (N = 50-100) will be BHCs employed by the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections. Following stratification for years of clinical experience, BHCs will be randomly assigned to (1) a training group that receives CCM-C immediately and (2) a wait-list control receiving CCM-C approximately 6 weeks later. Electronically administrated survey evaluation will occur across baseline and two follow-up (i.e., 2 weeks after each training session) time points.

DISCUSSION

The primary outcome is feasibility assessed through collaboration with a Corrections Advisory Panel and feedback from BHCs. Secondary effectiveness outcomes that will be evaluated over time include SDV-related knowledge, attitudes, stigma, and intent to use training content. We will examine a tertiary outcome, namely compassion fatigue. Clinical trial limitations and impacts are discussed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT06359574. This study was registered on 04/05/2024.

An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study METHODS: Ophthalmologists (n = 14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails that they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals, with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access, pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals that were listed on PubMed vs those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, P = .002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, P < .001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, P = .01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) provide a standard list of roles to specify individual contributions to research. CROTs most common application has been their inclusion alongside author bylines in scholarly publications. With the recent uptake of CROTs among publishers -particularly the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT)- some have anticipated a positive impact on ethical issues regarding the attribution of credit and responsibilities, but others have voiced concerns about CROTs shortcomings and ways they could be misunderstood or have unintended consequences. Since these discussions have never been consolidated, this review collated and explored published viewpoints about the ethics of CROTs. After searching Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. We identified eight themes and 20 specific issues related to the ethics of CROTs and provided four recommendations for CROT developers, custodians, or others seeking to use CROTs in their workflows, policy and practice: 1) Compile comprehensive instructions that explain how CROTs should be used; 2) Improve the coherence of used terms, 3) Translate roles in languages other than English, 4) Communicate a clear vision about future development plans and be transparent about CROTs' strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that CROTs are not the panacea for unethical attributions and should be complemented with initiatives that support social and infrastructural transformation of scholarly publications.

Publication of observational studies making claims of causation over time

To examine methodology characteristics over time and investigate research impact before and after the start of the COVID-19 era, we analyzed original articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine between October 26, 2017 and August 27, 2022. April 1, 2020 was used as the defining date dividing before and after the COVID-19 era. Out of 1051 original articles, 515 (49 %) were before and 536 (51 %) were after the COVID-19 era. Two independent reviewers categorized and reconciled methodology into groups: "randomized trial" (715 articles), "uncontrolled experimental study" (128), "descriptive observational study" (168), and "observational study making a causal claim" (40). We extracted subsequent citations and Altmetric data for each article to assess impact. The median number of social media shares was 2272 (IQR: 743-7821) for observational studies making a causal conclusion, compared to 306 (IQR: 70-606) for randomized trials (p-value=<0.001). The median Altmetric score for randomized COVID-19 trials (2421, IQR: 1063-3920) was not significantly different than that of COVID-19 observational studies making a causal claim (2583, IQR: 1513-6197, p-value = 0.42), but it was significantly lower than descriptive observational COVID-19 studies (4093, IQR: 2545-6823, p-value = 0.04). We conclude that there has been a steady increase in the number and percentage of observational studies that make causal conclusions about the efficacy of an intervention. Research concerning COVID-19, regardless of methodology, has seen a sharp rise in dissemination as measured through Altmetric's social media score and subsequent citations.

Variability of Guidelines and Disclosures for AI-Generated Content in Top Surgical Journals

Background: When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns.Research Design: Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use.Results: We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use.Conclusions: Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia.

Reproducibility in chemistry research

Chemistry is a reproducible science whose pillars - synthesis and analysis - actually comprise a huge collection of highly reproducible experimental methods to synthesize and analyze substances. The historical development of chemistry, furthermore, shows that reproducibility of methods has been the companion of novelty and creative innovation. The "publish or perish" principle dominating global academia since over two decades, however, intrinsically contributes to the publication of non-reproducible research outcomes also in chemistry. A study on reproducibility of chemistry research seems therefore timely, especially now that chemists are slowly but inevitably adopting open science and its tools such as the preprint, open access, and data sharing. We conclude presenting three simple guidelines for enhanced publication of research findings in chemistry.

The impact of suicide registers and other monitoring systems on suicide prevention: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Decreasing suicide mortality has become an overarching goal for societies worldwide. Suicide registers and other monitoring systems are a valuable source of information that can be used for addressing the suicide phenomenon and evaluating preventative interventions.

AIMS

This scoping review provides an overview of literature published in the last decade that has focussed on the operations (functioning) and characteristics of suicide registers and other suicide monitoring systems.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched in 2020 for identifying published material from January 2010 to October 2020. The searches were updated in October 2023 to include material from 2020 to date. Grey literature through Google searches and mental health commissions websites and the reference lists of selected documents were also searched.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles were included in this review. Nearly half the articles were from the United States, followed by Australia. Nine countries were identified as having used suicide registers or suicide-specific monitoring systems to inform suicide prevention. Monitoring mechanisms varied across the countries examined. No article provided evidence that definitively linked suicide registers or other monitoring systems for suicide with the prevention of suicide or reduction in suicide rates. However, a variety of benefits of suicide monitoring for preventative and public health interventions were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of nations with surveillance systems for suicide prevention is low. Further, there is a lack of consistency in the systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of suicide-related information across the countries examined. Efforts to establish high-quality suicide surveillance systems that can be accessed in a timely and easy manner are needed to inform tailored strategies for suicide prevention.

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.

[International Multi-stakeholder Consensus Statement on Clinical Trial Integrity]

BACKGROUND

Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT).

OBJECTIVE

To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.

METHODS

The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting.

RESULTS

There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n=6), design and approval (n=11), conduct and monitoring (n=19), reporting of protocols and findings (n=20), post-publication concerns (n=12), and future research and development (n=13).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the "big five" and the risks for research integrity

The exponential growth of MDPI and Frontiers over the last decade has been powered by their extensive use of special issues. The "special issue-ization" of journal publishing has been particularly associated with new publishers and seen as potentially "questionable." Through an extended case-study analysis of three journals owned by one of the "big five" commercial publishers, this paper explores the risks that this growing use of special issues presents to research integrity. All three case-study journals show sudden and marked changes in their publication patterns. An analysis of special issue editorials and retraction notes was used to determine the specifics of special issues and reasons for retractions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Findings suggest that these commercial publishers are also promoting special issues and that article retractions are often connected to guest editor manipulation. This underlies the threat that "special issue-ization" presents to research integrity. It highlights the risks posed by the guest editor model, and the importance of extending this analysis to long-existing commercial publishers. The paper emphasizes the need for an in-depth examination of the underlying structures and political economy of science, and a discussion of the rise of gaming and manipulation within higher education systems.

Responsibility is an adequate requirement for authorship: a reply to Levy

Neil Levy argues in a recent JME 'Current controversy' paper that responsibility is not an adequate authorship requirement for human researchers, which makes it unjustified to require it from artificial intelligence contributing to research and scientific paper production, although he softens his stance towards the end and accepts that a limited responsibility requirement might after all be reasonable. The main argument provided by Levy against a more extensive responsibility requirement in science is that there are many cases where not all researchers listed as coauthors can assume responsibility for the entire paper or even the central research questions. In this reply, we argue that the more limited responsibility requirement is the ethically reasonable one to ask of all authors, considering the conditions for and value of collaboration, and that this should also have ramifications for the legal regulation of scientific misconduct.

"Researchers' perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey"

The term "Predatory" alludes to the assumption that these organizations prey on academics for financial gain by charging article processing charges (APC) while failing to meet scholarly publishing standards.Predatory publishing is a growing threat to the academic society. Considering this,the University Grants Commission (UGC),India's statutory body for higher education,has responded by launching the University Grants Commission-Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (UGC-CARE) list,which attempts to promote research quality,integration,and publication ethics.An online survey was undertaken to determine the perception and awareness of North Eastern Hill University's researchers concerning predatory journals.A total of 160 respondents were recorded.The survey reveals that while the majority of participants (58.75%) were aware of predatory publications, a significant portion (41.25%) were not.It was found that a journal's listing in UGC-CARE list is the most crucial factor in submitting an original manuscript for publication.Researchers,aware of the negative consequences of publishing in piracy-related publications,prefer not to submit their scientific work to such publishers as it risk tarnishing their reputation.As a result,research findings emphasize the necessity for awareness initiatives to educate researchers about predatory publications early in their academic careers.Research initiatives like the UGC-CARE list should be encouraged to minimize predatory publishing; promote quality and transparency in research.Abbreviation: NEHU- North Eastern Hill University, UGC- University Grants Commission, APC- Article Processing Charge, UGC-CARE- University Grants Commission - Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics, DOAJ- Directory of Open Access Journals, DOI - Digital Object Identifiers, API- Academic Performance Indicator.

Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning

A popular preprint server, bioRxiv, is important as a tool for increased visibility for life science research. If used properly, however, bioRxiv can also be an important tool for training, as it may expose trainees (degree-seeking students undertaking research or internships directly related to their field of study) to the peer review process. Here, we offer a comprehensive guide to using bioRxiv as a training tool, as well as offer suggestions for improvements in bioRxiv, including confusion that may be caused by bioRxiv articles appearing on PubMed.

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high-impact-factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in some 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (251/6647) and 4.0% (47/1165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. Wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (91/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% (31/82) Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high-impact-factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Health Sciences Faculty Towards Scholarly Open Access and Predatory Publishing

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.

Cooperation in the Time of COVID

Humans evolved to be hyper-cooperative, particularly when among people who are well known to them, when relationships involve reciprocal helping opportunities, and when the costs to the helper are substantially less than the benefits to the recipient. Because humans' cooperative nature evolved over many millennia when they lived exclusively in small groups, factors that cause cooperation to break down tend to be those associated with life in large, impersonal, modern societies: when people are not identifiable, when interactions are one-off, when self-interest is not tied to the interests of others, and when people are concerned that others might free ride. From this perspective, it becomes clear that policies for managing pandemics will be most effective when they highlight superordinate goals and connect people or institutions to one another over multiple identifiable interactions. When forging such connections is not possible, policies should mimic critical components of ancestral conditions by providing reputational markers for cooperators and reducing the systemic damage caused by free riding. In this article, we review policies implemented during the pandemic, highlighting spontaneous community efforts that leveraged these aspects of people's evolved psychology, and consider implications for future decision makers.

Surgical Outcomes in Chiari 1 and Chiari 1.5 Malformation Treated by Posterior Fossa Reconstruction: A Comprehensive Analysis of 110 Pediatric Cases and Literature Review

Background/Objectives: The management of Chiari malformations (CMs) remains a clinical challenge and a topic of great controversy. Results may vary between children and adults. The purpose of the current single-center study is to critically assess the one-year surgical outcomes of a cohort of 110 children with CM-1 or CM-1.5 who were treated using "posterior fossa reconstruction" (PFR), a surgical technique described in 1994 that has since been used in both adults and children. We also review the literature and discuss the possible causes of the drawbacks and pitfalls in children in whom PFR was ineffective in controlling the disease. Methods: The present cohort was selected from a prospective registry of adults and children with CMs collected since 2006. Patients included in this study were selected from a group of children with CMs who were operated on in our Pediatric Neurosurgical Unit between 1 January 2007 and 31 November 2023. Surgical outcome was defined based on clinical and neuroradiological results as very good, good, or bad. Results: The mean age of our child cohort was 9.9 ± 4.7 years, with 54 girls (49%) and 56 boys (51%). Sixty-six children had CM-1 (60%) while forty-four had CM-1.5 (40%). Following surgery, there was no neurological worsening or death among the children. Most children (70%) had an uneventful recovery and were discharged home on average one week after surgery. However, in 33 children (30%), we recorded at least one postoperative adverse event. Aseptic meningitis syndrome was the most frequent adverse event (n = 25, 22.7%). The final surgical outcome was evaluated one year after PFR by using both clinical and neuroradiological results. The one-year surgical outcome was excellent in 101 children (91.9%), good in 5 (4.5%), and bad in 4 (3.6%). Conclusions: PFR significantly enlarges the volume of the posterior fossa and recreates a CSF environment that generates buoyancy of the cerebellum, with a high percentage of excellent and good clinical results evaluated one year post-surgery.

Selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions in health psychology and behavioural medicine journals: a review

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.

Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals

BACKGROUND

As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control. Recent advances in understanding reviewer biases and behaviors along with electronic manuscript handling records have allowed unprecedented investigations into the peer review process.

METHODS

We examined a sample of six journals within the field of fisheries science (and all published by the American Fisheries Society) specifically looking for changes in reviewer invitation rates, review time, patterns of reviewer agreements, and rejection rates relative to different forms of blinding.

RESULTS

Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011-2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate-around 20% higher-of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.

SARS-CoV-2 viral titer measurements in Ontario, Canada wastewaters throughout the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Province of Ontario, Canada, launched a wastewater surveillance program to monitor SARS-CoV-2, inspired by the early work and successful forecasts of COVID-19 waves in the city of Ottawa, Ontario. This manuscript presents a dataset from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023, with RT-qPCR results for SARS-CoV-2 genes and PMMoV from 107 sites across all 34 public health units in Ontario, covering 72% of the province's and 26.2% of Canada's population. Sampling occurred 2-7 times weekly, including geographical coordinates, serviced populations, physico-chemical water characteristics, and flowrates. In doing so, this manuscript ensures data availability and metadata preservation to support future research and epidemic preparedness through detailed analyses and modeling. The dataset has been crucial for public health in tracking disease locally, especially with the rise of the Omicron variant and the decline in clinical testing, highlighting wastewater-based surveillance's role in estimating disease incidence in Ontario.

Annamma L, Subaveerapandiyan A, George BT, Kataria S. Visualising Medical Research: Exploring the Influence of Infographics on Professional Dissemination

Objective

This study explores the impact of infographics on the professional dissemination of medical research. Recognising the burgeoning volume of data in the medical domain, this research aims to bridge the gap by investigating the efficacy of infographics in rendering complex medical concepts understandable to diverse audiences, including policymakers, patients, and the public.

Design

The study uses a cross-sectional survey to assess medical professionals' familiarity with infographic design and data visualisation principles. Setting. The research targets medical professionals with published articles across various subfields, including Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology, Pharmacology, Healthcare Management, Medical Imaging, and Public Health.

Method

Data collection involves an online survey distributed to potential participants through professional networks and research institutions. The survey encompasses Likert-scale questions and demographic variables. Ethical considerations include obtaining approval from the institutional review board, ensuring participant consent, and maintaining data anonymity and confidentiality.

Results

Demographic analysis reveals a diverse participant profile, with 58.7% male and 41.3% female respondents, spanning various age groups, professional experiences, and geographic locations. Assessing familiarity with infographic design and data visualisation principles demonstrates respondents' proficiency in certain areas while highlighting potential areas for improvement.

Conclusion

The study underscores the multifaceted benefits of infographics in research dissemination, as medical professionals perceive. Infographics can effectively convey various kinds of medical research information across diverse platforms and channels.

Planned but ever published? A retrospective analysis of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics and publication outcomes of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2000, and March 2, 2022, describing the development of a new clinical prediction model or the validation of an existing model for predicting individual-level prognostic or diagnostic risk were analyzed. Eligible clinicaltrials.gov records were classified by modeling study type (development, validation) and the model outcome being predicted (prognostic, diagnostic). Recorded characteristics included study status, sample size information, Medical Subject Headings, and plans to share individual participant data. Publication outcomes were analyzed by linking National Clinical Trial numbers for eligible records with PubMed abstracts.

RESULTS

Nine hundred twenty-eight records were analyzed from a possible 89,896 observational study records. Publications searches found 170 matching peer-reviewed publications for 137 clinicaltrials.gov records. The estimated proportion of records with 1 or more matching publications after accounting for time since study start was 2.8% at 2 years (95% CI: 1.7%, 3.9%), 12.3% at 5 years (9.8% to 14.9%) and 27% at 10 years (23% to 33%). Stratifying records by study start year indicated that publication proportions improved over time. Records tended to prioritize the development of new prediction models over the validation of existing models (76%; 704/928 vs. 24%; 182/928). At the time of download, 27% of records were marked as complete, 35% were still recruiting, and 14.7% had unknown status. Only 7.4% of records stated plans to share individual participant data.

CONCLUSION

Published clinical prediction model studies are only a fraction of overall research efforts, with many studies planned but not completed or published. Improving the uptake of study preregistration and follow-up will increase the visibility of planned research. Introducing additional registry features and guidance may improve the identification of clinical prediction model studies posted to clinical registries.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Reinterpretation of the results of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) shape our clinical practice. Several studies report a mediocre replicability rate of the studied RCTs. Many researchers believe that the relatively low replication rate of RCTs is attributed to the high p value significance threshold. To solve this problem, some researchers proposed using a lower threshold, which is inevitably associated with a decrease in the study power.

METHODS

The results of 22 500 RCTs retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were reinterpreted using 2 fixed p significance threshold (0.05 and 0.005), and a recently proposed flexible threshold that minimizes the weighted sum of errors in statistical inference.

RESULTS

With p < 0.05 criterion, 28.5% of RCTs were significant; p < 0.005, 14.2%; and p < flexible threshold, 9.9% (2/3 of significant RCTs based on p < 0.05 criterion, were found not significant). Lowering the p cut-off, although decreases the false-positive rate, is not generally associated with a lower weighted sum of errors; the false-negative rate increases (the study power decreases); important treatments may be left undiscovered. Accurate calculation of the optimal p value thresholds needs knowledge of the variance in each study arm, a posteriori.

CONCLUSIONS

Lowering the p value threshold, as it is proposed by some researchers, is not reasonable as it might be associated with an increase in false-negative rate. Using a flexible p significance threshold approach, although results in a minimum error in statistical inference, might not be good enough too because only a rough estimation may be calculated a priori; the data necessary for the precise computation of the most appropriate p significance threshold are only available a posteriori. Frequentist statistical framework has an inherent conflict. Alternative methods, say Bayesian methods, although not perfect, would be more appropriate for the data analysis of RCTs.

Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health

OBJECTIVES

Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

Normative challenges in data governance: insights from global health research

Many important questions in health professions education require datasets that are built from several sources, in some cases using data collected for a different purpose. In building and maintaining these datasets, project leaders will need to make decisions about the data. While such decisions are often construed as technical, there are several normative concerns, such as who should have access, how the data will be used, how products resulting from the data will be shared, and how to ensure privacy of the individuals the data is about is respected, etc. Establishing a framework for data governance can help project leaders in avoiding problems, related to such matters, that could limit what can be learned from the data or that might put the project (or future projects) at risk. In this paper, we highlight several normative challenges to be addressed when determining a data governance framework. Drawing from lessons in global health, we illustrate three kinds of normative challenges for projects that rely on data from multiple sources or involved partnerships across institutions or jurisdictions: (1) legal and regulatory requirements, (2) consent, and (3) equitable sharing and fair distribution.

Assessment of the Daily Living Activities of Older People (2004-2023): A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis

With a rapidly aging global population, comprehending the risks associated with older people's activities of daily living is increasingly important; yet, interdisciplinary analyses remain rare. By providing a bibliometric overview of the capability risks associated with older people's activities of daily living, in order to identify prevailing trends and future directions in the field, the study aims to fill this gap. Using CiteSpace software to analyze data from 928 articles published between 2004 and 2023, the study results demonstrate the growing interest in the capability risks of older people's activities of daily living, with the United States leading in the number of publications, and geriatrics emerging as the dominant discipline. Notably, Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (Inserm) in France emerges as a pivotal contributor in the field. Key research topics encompass risk factors associated with a decline in daily activities and disease-related studies, with emerging trends in cognitive function and instrumental activity research. Future research should prioritize the development of predictive mechanisms for daily living trends, exploration of caregiving solutions, and promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration. This study highlights promising avenues for further research, emphasizing the importance of predictive modeling, innovative caregiving strategies, and interdisciplinary cooperation in addressing capability risks in the activities of daily living of older people.

Fostering student authorship skills in synthetic biology

Women and racial minorities are underrepresented in the synthetic biology community. Developing a scholarly identity by engaging in a scientific community through writing and communication is an important component for STEM retention, particularly for underrepresented individuals. Several excellent pedagogical tools have been developed to teach scientific literacy and to measure competency in reading and interpreting scientific literature. However, fewer tools exist to measure learning gains with respect to writing, or that teach the more abstract processes of peer review and scientific publishing, which are essential for developing scholarly identity and publication currency. Here we describe our approach to teaching scientific writing and publishing to undergraduate students within a synthetic biology course. Using gold standard practices in project-based learning, we created a writing project in which students became experts in a specific application area of synthetic biology with relevance to an important global problem or challenge. To measure learning gains associated with our learning outcomes, we adapted and expanded the Student Attitudes, Abilities, and Beliefs (SAAB) concept inventory to include additional questions about the process of scientific writing, authorship, and peer review. Our results suggest the project-based approach was effective in achieving the learning objectives with respect to writing and peer reviewed publication, and resulted in high student satisfaction and student self-reported learning gains. We propose that these educational practices could contribute directly to the development of scientific identity of undergraduate students as synthetic biologists, and will be useful in creating a more diverse synthetic biology research enterprise.

Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on COVID-19 and beyond

Background

The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public's evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond.

Methods

To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories.

Results

At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with 'superficial' and 'deep' evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists.

Conclusions

We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.