Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

One size does not fit all: an exploratory interview study on how translational researchers navigate the current academic reward system

Introduction

Translational research is a subfield of the biomedical life sciences that focuses on clinically driven healthcare innovations. The workforce of this subfield, i.e., translational researchers, are diversely specialized and collaborate with a multitude of stakeholders from diverse disciplines in and outside academia in order to navigate the complex path of translating unmet clinical needs into research questions and ultimately into advancements for patient care. Translational researchers have varying responsibilities in the clinical, educational, and research domains requiring them to split their time two- or three-ways. Working between these domains and alongside peers who do not split their time as such, raises questions about the academic reward system used to recognize their performance, which mainly focuses on publication metrics within the research domain. What is unclear is how combining research tasks with tasks in the clinical and/or educational domains effects translational researchers and how they navigate the academic reward system.

Methods

In this exploratory interview study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the current academic reward system for translational researchers. Stratified purposeful sampling was used to recruit 14 translational researchers from varying countries, subspecialties, and career stages. The interviews were coded after data collection was complete and arranged into three overarching result categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic factors, and ideal academic reward system and advice.

Results

We found that these 14 translational researchers were intrinsically motivated to achieve their translational goals while working in settings where clinical work was reported to take priority over teaching which in turn took priority over time for research. However, it is the latter that was explained to be essential in the academic reward system which currently measures scientific impact largely based on publications metrics.

Conclusion

In this study, translational researchers were asked about their thoughts regarding the current academic reward system. Participants shared possible structural improvements and ideas for specialized support on an individual, institutional, and also international level. Their recommendations focused on acknowledging all aspects of their work and led to the conclusion that traditional quantitative academic reward metrics do not fully align with their translational goals.

Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Science: Anticipating Problems and Potential Solutions: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had worldwide repercussions for health care and research. In spring 2020, most non-COVID-19 research was halted, hindering research across the spectrum from laboratory-based experimental science to clinical research. Through the second half of 2020 and the first half of 2021, biomedical research, including cardiovascular science, only gradually restarted, with many restrictions on onsite activities, limited clinical research participation, and the challenges associated with working from home and caregiver responsibilities. Compounding these impediments, much of the global biomedical research infrastructure was redirected toward vaccine testing and deployment. This redirection of supply chains, personnel, and equipment has additionally hampered restoration of normal research activity. Transition to virtual interactions offset some of these limitations but did not adequately replace the need for scientific exchange and collaboration. Here, we outline key steps to reinvigorate biomedical research, including a call for increased support from the National Institutes of Health. We also call on academic institutions, publishers, reviewers, and supervisors to consider the impact of COVID-19 when assessing productivity, recognizing that the pandemic did not affect all equally. We identify trainees and junior investigators, especially those with caregiving roles, as most at risk of being lost from the biomedical workforce and identify steps to reduce the loss of these key investigators. Although the global pandemic highlighted the power of biomedical science to define, treat, and protect against threats to human health, significant investment in the biomedical workforce is required to maintain and promote well-being.