Duplicate and salami publication: a prevalence study of journal policies

A perspective on new dilemmas in scientific publishing in the time of a pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic exerted manifold pressures on the public health framework globally, but it also in a way unified different genres and allowed for strategizing and implementing regulatory decisions as best as possible, especially in India. There is an unmet need for such a unified and integrative approach in the area of scientific publishing which has also been touched by various dilemmas, either emergent or propagated during this pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

This article intends to re-visit some of the dilemmas in scientific publishing, which have taken centre stage owing to a healthcare emergency, with the objective of highlighting an unmet need for developing unified criteria for research conduction and publishing from a futuristic view point, as one is not without the other.

CONTENT

While a fast track delivery of research data has been a priority for research journals, the due pressures in the process management of the same while skimming the ethical boundaries of responsible mediation through a Journal platform has remained a challenge globally for various reasons. Furthermore, the inevitability of a healthcare emergency inadvertently led to some cumulative off-target effects including accumulation of research waste, diminishing validity of academic metrics, short data set publications, hasty zombie clinical trials publishing merely an overview of the actual data, etc, which are major issues not only for journal Editors or the research community as a whole, but also for regulatory authorities and policy makers. As a step towards future pandemic preparedness, strategizing and streamlining research and publication processes ensuing responsible reporting should be treated as a topic of paramount significance. Hence, through debating on these dilemmas as well as potential integrative approaches, unified guiding criteria in the area of scientific publishing may be developed in lieu of preparedness for such future pandemic scenarios.

A critical review exploring science communication of nutrition and dietetic research: a case-based approach exploring methodologies

BACKGROUND

Nutrition is an area of apparent disagreement among the public and experts. It is also an area which has seen a rapid increase in the number of publications in the past 40 years. With the advent of online media and social media platforms, the volume of news has also increased. This review considered five types of nutrition research and how press releases linked to publications might be reported by the media.

METHODS

Examples were taken from nutrition-related articles published in the areas of in vitro work, animal data, epidemiology, clinical trials and data modelling publications which had press releases deposited in online repositories (EurekAlert! and AlphaGalileo). A critical narrative of the source of the media message, estimates of its reach and any potential exaggeration or source of confusion were identified.

RESULTS

It was clear that research has been reported by funders, journals and researchers' institutions in ways that claim extended findings of the data beyond that reported in the manuscript. This included inferences of health benefits in humans from laboratory studies, splitting outcome data for the same exposure in epidemiological studies based on perceived public interest, using clinical trials to make media claims that would not be permitted in advertisements and claiming modelled data for cases were actual changes in numbers of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential that funding bodies and institutions along with academic journals apply pressure to discourage exaggeration of research. This is necessary to maintain public trust in science and ultimately improve public health.

Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic proportions. However, it was also emphasized that not all duplication is bad, that replication in research is essential, and that it can help discover unfortunate behaviors of scientists. Thus, the question is how to define a redundant systematic review, the harmful consequences of such reviews, and what we could do to prevent the unnecessary amount of this redundancy.

MAIN BODY

There is no consensus definition of a redundant systematic review. Also, it needs to be defined what amount of overlap between systematic reviews is acceptable and not considered a redundancy. One needs to be aware that it is possible that the authors did not intend to create a redundant systematic review. A new review on an existing topic, which is not an update, is likely justified only when it can be shown that the previous review was inadequate, for example, due to suboptimal methodology. Redundant meta-analyses could have scientific, ethical, and economic questions for researchers and publishers, and thus, they should be avoided, if possible. Potential solutions for preventing redundant reviews include the following: (1) mandatory prospective registration of systematic reviews; (2) editors and peer reviewers rejecting duplicate/redundant and inadequate reviews; (3) modifying the reporting checklists for systematic reviews; (4) developing methods for evidence-based research (EBR) monitoring; (5) defining systematic reviews; (6) defining the conclusiveness of systematic reviews; (7) exploring interventions for the adoption of methodological advances; (8) killing off zombie reviews (i.e., abandoned registered reviews); (9) better prevention of duplicate reviews at the point of registration; (10) developing living systematic reviews; and (11) education of researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Disproportionate redundancy of the same or very similar systematic reviews can lead to scientific, ethical, economic, and societal harms. While it is not realistic to expect that the creation of redundant systematic reviews can be completely prevented, some preventive measures could be tested and implemented to try to reduce the problem. Further methodological research and development in this field will be welcome.

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'Overviews of systematic reviews': a meta-research study of research waste

Multiple ‘overviews of reviews’ conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesized reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD‐10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD‐10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time, and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied, which do not need to be duplicated.

Ethical considerations of academic surgical research

Ethical considerations surrounding clinical research have been a topic of intense debate and discussion for many years, however, issues specific to the surgeon-scientist are rarely discussed. This article summarizes ethical issues pertinent to the surgeon-scientist including conflicts of interest, use of human biospecimens, data integrity, manuscript authorship, and mentorship for trainees. The methods include a review of the current and past literature on each of these topics with a brief overview of how it relates to the surgeon-scientist. Case examples are provided throughout to provide further discussion points related to the topic. The purpose of this review is to promote awareness of the ethical challenges that the surgeon-scientist faces when engaging in basic science research in order to spark discussion and encourage integrity and ethical behavior.

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? In this paper, a young, senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing. He covers major information you need to know during the entire process, from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper. He introduces key points for consideration, such as avoidance of predatory journals, dubious research practices and ethics, interaction with peers, reviewers, and editors, and the pursuit of aretê. Finally, he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions, such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference. He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

The challenges of a small medical journal to have international recognition in Indonesia: editors' perspectives

[No abstract available]

Spanish Scientists' Opinion about Science and Researcher Behavior

We surveyed 348 Psychology and Education researchers within Spain, on issues such as their perception of a crisis in Science, their confidence in the quality of published results, and the use of questionable research practices (QRP). Their perceptions regarding pressure to publish and academic competition were also collected. The results indicate that a large proportion of the sample of Spanish academics think there is a crisis in Science, mainly due to a lack of economic investment, and doubts the quality of published findings. They also feel strong pressure to publish in high impact factor journals and a highly competitive work climate.

Tracing open data in emergencies: The case of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic constitutes an ongoing, burning Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). In 2015, the World Health Organization adopted an open data policy recommendation in such situations.

OBJECTIVES

The present cross-sectional meta-research study aimed to assess the availability of open data and metrics of articles pertaining to the COVID-19 outbreak in five high-impact journals.

METHODS

All articles regarding the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), published in five high-impact journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and Lancet) until March 14, 2020 were retrieved. Metadata (namely the type of article, number of authors, number of patients, citations, errata, news and social media mentions) were extracted for each article in each journal in a systematic way. Google Scholar and Scopus were used for citations and author metrics respectively, and Altmetrics and PlumX were used for news and social media mentions retrieval. The degree of adherence to the PHEIC open data call was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 140 articles were published until March 14, 2020, mostly opinion papers. Sixteen errata followed these publications. The number of authors in each article ranged from 1 to 63, whereas the number of patients with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reached 2645. Extensive hyperauthorship was evident among case studies. The impact of these publications reached a total of 4210 cumulative crude citations and 342 790 news and social media mentions. Only one publication (0.7%) provided complete open data, while 32 (22.9%) included patient data.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though a large number of manuscripts was produced since the pandemic, availability of open data remains restricted.