The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review--part 2

Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

Electronic Journals: Time for a New Paradigm in Biomedical Communication

Despite an exponentially increasing knowledge base in the biomedical sciences and revolutionary advances in computer technology and global networking, scientists and health care workers continue to rely on the nineteenth-century medium of print periodicals as the mainstay of information distribution. Multidisciplinary in theory and practice, practitioners of intensive care medicine are particularly in need of a modern and efficient communication and publishing medium. This discussion questions the appropriateness of the current model of commercial print publishing for biomedical communication, finding it inefficient, expensive, and overly restrictive. With the explosive recent growth of the Internet, and the platform-independent World Wide Web, scientists and clinicians now have an opportunity to forge a new paradigm of noncommercial electronic publishing. For a fraction of the cost that the biomedical community is spending currently for our antiquated system, universal access over the Internet to peer-reviewed electronic journals, sponsored jointly by universities, governments, and health care institutions, can be accomplished now.

Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers

BACKGROUND

The placement of medical research news on a newspaper's front page is intended to gain the public's attention, so it is important to understand the source of the news in terms of research maturity and evidence level.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We searched LexisNexis to identify medical research reported on front pages of major newspapers published from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. We used MEDLINE and Google Scholar to find journal articles corresponding to the research, and determined their evidence level. Of 734 front-page medical research stories identified, 417 (57%) referred to mature research published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining 317 stories referred to preliminary findings presented at scientific or press meetings; 144 (45%) of those stories mentioned studies that later matured (i.e. were published in journals within 3 years after news coverage). The evidence-level distribution of the 515 journal articles quoted in news stories reporting on mature research (3% level I, 21% level II, 42% level III, 4% level IV, and 31% level V) differed from that of the 170 reports of preliminary research that later matured (1%, 19%, 35%, 12%, and 33%, respectively; chi-square test, P = .0009). No news stories indicated evidence level. Fewer than 1 in 5 news stories reporting preliminary findings acknowledged the preliminary nature of their content.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Only 57% of front-page stories reporting on medical research are based on mature research, which tends to have a higher evidence level than research with preliminary findings. Medical research news should be clearly referenced and state the evidence level and limitations to inform the public of the maturity and quality of the source.

The self-archiving principle: a momentous trek

In the existing scholarly publishing empire, authors give away their valued research work to various commercial journals, thereby restricting free accessibility to the published useful work. Triggered by the gargantuan promise of the internet, the self-archiving principle is a new and revolutionary concept which potentially lets all research work become freely available online. It involves deposition of research documents at a publicly accessible website, and its proponents see the initiative as a means to set entire author works free of all access and impact barriers. This review briefly discusses the allied concepts, the course and implications of the initiative.

Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Results from clinical trials are typically disseminated first by presentation at scientific meetings. An important question has to do with the role of presentation in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the journals as well as the effect of presentation in speeding, or delaying subsequent publication. The aim of this research is focused on presentation practices of trialists to examine their effect on the timing of publications of clinical trial results.

METHODS

Six hundred and one (601) trials published in 1996 and 1997 were identified via MEDLINE using medical subject heading "clinical trials" or the occurrence of the term in the text and by limiting to publication type "clinical trial". Authors of those trials were surveyed to determine prior presentation history for the identified trials.

RESULTS

Among the 601 trials identified, complete responses to questionnaires were obtained for 379 (63%) trials. The median time from completion to first submission of the primary results manuscript was 11 months and the median time from completion to publication was 25 months for the 220 trials involving presentation prior to submission for publication. The corresponding median times from completion to first submission and publication for the subset of trials not involving presentation prior to the submission were 8 and 19 months (159 trials), respectively. The adjusted relative hazard for publication for trials involving presentation prior to first submission was 0.55 versus trials not involving presentation prior to first submission (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of dissemination of results prior to publication, investigators should carefully weigh a potential gain in quality against a potential for delay in submission of the primary results manuscript by presentation at scientific meetings. The findings of our study suggest that presentation prior to submission may increase time to publication. Inclusion of presentation dates in clinical trial registers should be considered to allow future studies investigating presentation and publication practices.

Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?

Getting a manuscript accepted by a journal can be a long, drawn out process and delays dissemination of clinical research. Allowing authors to submit to several journals simultaneously could speed up publication

Scientific authorship

One challenge for most scientists is avoiding and resolving issues that center around authorship and the publishing of scientific manuscripts. While trying to place the research in proper context, impart new knowledge, follow proper guidelines, and publish in the most appropriate journal, the scientist often must deal with multi-collaborator issues like authorship allocation, trust and dependence, and resolution of publication conflicts. Most guidelines regarding publications, commentaries, and editorials have evolved from the ranks of editors in an effort to diminish the issues that faced them as editors. For example, the Ingelfinger rule attempts to prevent duplicate publications of the same study. This paper provides a historical overview of commonly encountered scientific authorship issues, a comparison of opinions on these issues, and the influence of various organizations and guidelines in regards to these issues. For example, a number of organizations provide guidelines for author allocation; however, a comparison shows that these guidelines differ on who should be an author, rules for ordering authors, and the level of responsibility for coauthors. Needs that emerge from this review are (a) a need for more controlled studies on authorship issues, (b) an increased awareness and a buy-in to consensus views by non-editor groups, e.g., managers, authors, reviewers, and scientific societies, and (c) a need for editors to express a greater understanding of authors' dilemmas and to exhibit greater flexibility. Also needed are occasions (e.g., an international congress) when editors and others (managers, authors, etc.) can directly exchange views, develop consensus approaches and solutions, and seek agreement on how to resolve authorship issues. Open dialogue is healthy, and it is essential for scientific integrity to be protected so that younger scientists can confidently follow the lead of their predecessors.

Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting predict subsequent publication?

OBJECTIVE

The validity of research presented at scientific meetings continues to be a concern. Presentations are chosen on the basis of submitted abstracts, which may not contain sufficient information to assess the validity of the research. The objective of this study was to determine 1) the proportion of abstracts presented at the annual Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) meeting that were ultimately published in peer reviewed journals; 2) whether the presentation format of abstracts at the meeting predicts subsequent full publication; and whether the presentation format was related to 3) the time to full publication or 4) the impact factor of the journal in which research is subsequently published.

METHODS

We assembled a list of all abstracts submitted to the PAS meetings in general pediatrics categories in 1998 and 1999, using both CD-ROM and journal publications. In each year, we chose up to 80 abstracts from each presentation format ("publish only," "poster," "poster symposium," "platform presentation"). We chose either 1) all abstracts in each format or 2) when there were >80 abstracts, a random selection of 80 of them. We assessed each selected abstract for subsequent full publication by searching Medline in March 2003; if published, then we recorded the journal, month, and year of publication. We used logistic and linear regression to determine whether publication, time to publication, and the journal's impact factor were associated with the abstract's presentation format.

RESULTS

Overall, 44.6% of abstracts presented at the PAS meeting achieved subsequent full publication within 4 to 5 years. There were significant differences between the rates of subsequent full publication of abstracts submitted but not chosen for presentation at the meeting (22.2%) and those that were chosen for presentation in poster sessions (40.0%), poster symposia (44.1%), and platform presentations (53.8%). There were no meaningful differences between the presentation formats in their mean time to publication and their mean journal impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

PAS meeting attendees and the press should be cautious when interpreting the presentation format of an abstract as a predictor of either its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal or the impact factor of the journal in which it will appear.

Helping journalists get it right: a physicians's guide to improving health care reporting

News reports are the way that most people, including many physicians and scientists, first learn about new developments in medicine. Because these reports can raise awareness, influence behavior, and confer credibility, physicians should share responsibility with the media for accurate reporting. Physicians can work with reporters to avoid sensationalizing tentative findings, overstating benefits, and making inappropriate generalizations. This article includes pragmatic suggestions for crafting effective news releases and explaining numerical data. It details "rules of the road" for interviews. Working collaboratively with news reporters to improve the quality of medical stories in the lay press benefits patients and physicians alike.

Mass media release of medical research results: an analysis of antihypertensive drug prescribing in the aftermath of the calcium channel blocker scare of March 1995

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of medical research results to the public creates tension between lay medical reporters and the medical profession.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the early effect of media attention on the risks associated with short-acting calcium channel blockers (CCBs) for treating hypertension after publication at a national meeting and following publication.

DESIGN

Time-series analysis of prescription claims data. SETTING AND DATA SOURCE: National third-party pharmaceutical benefits manager.

PATIENTS

Employed or retired persons and their families, 18 years of age or older, receiving prescription benefits from 1 of 4 national companies that contracted with the pharmaceutical benefits manager exclusively for prescription drug coverage.

MEASUREMENTS

Prescription claims for antihypertensive drugs by fill date converted to a percentage of all cardiovascular drug claims. Data were grouped into weekly intervals before and immediately after the national release of negative information about CCBs on March 10, 1995 and following publication of the results on August 23, 1995.

RESULTS

The most prevalent antihypertensive drugs were diuretics (21% of cardiovascular prescription claims) and calcium channel blockers (19%). A 10% decline in prescriptions filled for CCBs occurred 4 weeks following the intense media attention. Only prescriptions for long-acting calcium channel blockers declined. Alpha-1-blocker prescriptions increased by approximately the same amount that prescriptions for CCBs declined, suggesting substitution of one drug for the other. Changes in diuretic or beta-blocker prescriptions filled were not statistically significant. No immediate change in other cardiovascular drug classes occurred following journal publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Intense media publicity regarding a controversial study measurably and unpredictably changed prescription claims.

Reporting medical information: effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles' visibility in the news media

BACKGROUND

Characteristics defining newsworthiness of journal articles appearing in JAMA and NEJM were examined to determine if they affect visibility in the news media. It was also hypothesized that press releases affected the amount of news coverage of a journal article due to the fact that the most newsworthy journal articles are selected for press releases.

METHODS

Journal articles (N = 95) were coded for characteristics believed to describe the "newsworthiness" of journal articles. Quantity of news coverage of the journal articles was estimated using the LEXIS-NEXIS database. Bivariate associations were examined using one-way analysis of variance, and multivariate analyses utilized OLS regression.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the newsworthiness of medical journal articles predicted their visibility in newspapers. The issuing of press releases also predicted newspaper coverage. However, press releases predicted newspaper coverage largely because more newsworthy journal articles had accompanying press releases rather than because the press release itself was influential.

CONCLUSIONS

Journalists report on medical information that is topical, stratifies risk based on demographic and lifestyle variables, and has lifestyle rather than medical implications. Medical journals issue press releases for articles that possess the characteristics journalists are looking for, thereby further highlighting their importance.

Biomedical publishing and the internet: evolution or revolution?

The Internet is challenging traditional publishing patterns. In the biomedical domain, medical journals are providing more and more content online, both free and for a fee. Beyond this, however, a number of commentators believe that traditional notions of copyright and intellectual property ownership are no longer suited to the information age and that ownership of copyright to research reports should be and will be wrested from publishers and returned to authors. In this paper, it is argued that, although the Internet will indeed profoundly affect the distribution of biomedical research results, the biomedical publishing industry is too intertwined with the research establishment and too powerful to fall prey to such a copyright revolution.

[Nosocomial infections due to opportunistic fungi: analysis of a news outbreak in the Spanish press]

BACKGROUND

To study an outbreak of media news related to nosocomial infections due to opportunistic fungi in Spanish hospitals.

METHOD

CASE DEFINITION

any news related to possible nosocomial infection due to opportunistic fungi in Spanish hospitals, published in national or local daily newspapers, over the pre-epidemic (July-December, 1998) and epidemic periods (January-June, 1999). All news were reviewed and identified using global press reports summaries, prepared by two independent sources, and were analyzed by three different observers.

RESULTS

Over the pre-epidemic period there were not any news related to nosocomial infections due to opportunistic fungi. Over the epidemic period, a total of 218 news were identified, 154 (71%) published in national newspapers and 64 (29%) in local ones. We analyzed separately 18 editorials or opinion articles related to this subject. The epidemic curve (distribution of news by week) showed an incidence news peak at week 5 (102 news, 46.7% of all news published). The media mentioned up to 19 different hospitals as institutions with possible cases of nosocomial fungal infections. After week 8, news incidence drop, and remain thereafter at minimum levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The example provided by the analysis of this outbreak of media news, related to nosocomial infections by Aspergillus an other opportunistic fungi, is useful to allow us understand how some medical news arise, develop and were transmitted. The public alert situation created in Spain was remarkable, and it is likely that there was a transient loss of confidence in the safety of public health institutions. Today's medicine requires a great and better openness to the media, and a better cooperation between both parts.

Biomedicine's electronic publishing paradigm shift: copyright policy and PubMed Central

Biomedical publishing stands at a crossroads. The traditional print, peer-reviewed, subscription journal has served science well but is now being called into question. Because of spiraling print journal costs and the worldwide acceptance of the Internet as a valid publication medium, there is a compelling opportunity to re-examine our current paradigm and future options. This report illustrates the conflicts and restrictions inherent in the current publishing model and examines how the single act of permitting authors to retain copyright of their scholarly manuscripts may preserve the quality-control function of the current journal system while allowing PubMed Central, the Internet archiving system recently proposed by the director of the National Institutes of Health, to simplify and liberate access to the world's biomedical literature.

Public understanding of genetics and Alzheimer disease

It is generally thought that public understanding of science is inadequate. The definitions of "the public," "understanding," and "science" all need careful consideration in this formulation, with a greater focus on who should understand what and for what purposes. Improved public understanding depends on experts being reflective about the limits of their own expertise and the different needs of the many potential consumers of genetic knowledge. Media coverage of genetic discoveries has been extensive in recent years, but this coverage is often not useful and may even be misleading to families at risk for genetic disease. The Internet provides an alternative source of information as well as an interactive forum, one that has been widely used by persons interested in Alzheimer disease (AD). Internet-based activities hold great promise for providing interested members of the public with useful information and facilitating more substantive dialogue among physicians, researches, and laypersons regarding the genetic aspects of AD.

An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media

The enduring tensions between medicine and the media are largely due to the different perspectives of biomedical scientists and journalists, as this final essay in the series on medicine and the media underscores. These tensions arise because of perceived differences in defining science news, conflicts over styles of science reporting, and most of all disagreement about the role of the media. In the 1990s, scientists are especially concerned by media messages that question their credibility. Since scientists and journalists depend on each other in the communication of science and the shaping of the public meaning of science and medicine, the tensions are likely to increase.