The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science

Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this "parasitic" publishing model

The emergence of the Internet has transformed all areas of society. This includes the universe of scientific publications, with several publishers now exclusively focusing on the electronic format and open access model while expanding to a megajournal scope. In this context, the pandemic of predatory open access journals (POAJs) and meetings are of grave concern to the academic and research community. This new shift within academia produces a variety of new victims; namely, the authors themselves. In turn, scientific knowledge is often discredited, with the public placing less trust in science. Now more than ever, performing research with integrity and selecting a journal in which to publish requires close attention and expertise. The "predatory movement" has developed increasingly sophisticated techniques for misleading people into believing what seem to be credible professional layouts and legitimate invitations. Initiatives such as the Jeffrey Beall's list, the Cabell's Scholarly Analytics and Think.Check.Submit offer some guidance to uncover the "parasitic" intervention of predatory journals and meetings, but specific education in this field is sorely needed. This work aims to review the main characteristics of predatory journals and meetings and to analyze this topic in the context of forensic and legal medicine research.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

The natural selection of good science

Scientists in some fields are concerned that many published results are false. Recent models predict selection for false positives as the inevitable result of pressure to publish, even when scientists are penalized for publications that fail to replicate. We model the cultural evolution of research practices when laboratories are allowed to expend effort on theory, enabling them, at a cost, to identify hypotheses that are more likely to be true, before empirical testing. Theory can restore high effort in research practice and suppress false positives to a technical minimum, even without replication. The mere ability to choose between two sets of hypotheses, one with greater prior chance of being correct, promotes better science than can be achieved with effortless access to the set of stronger hypotheses. Combining theory and replication can have synergistic effects. On the basis of our analysis, we propose four simple recommendations to promote good science.

COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Scientific integrity is a learned skill. When researchers and students learn integrity in laboratories or in the classroom, they are empowered to use similar principles in other aspects of their lives. This commentary reviews the concepts related to scientific integrity at a time when science faces important challenges related to the increase number of articles produced regarding research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ignited another parallel viral pandemic, with science ranging from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate. A balance is needed between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct. The truth is that the "scientific research has changed the world" but now, and more than ever, "it needs to change itself". A pandemic with a "paperdemic" will be even more complicated to manage if it progresses in an uncontrolled manner and is not properly scrutinized.

The H-index in Life and Health Sciences: Advantages, Drawbacks and Challenging Opportunities

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific publications. The h-index offers a consistent estimation method about a researcher's overall scientific achievements since it combines the total number of publications (i.e., productivity) and the number of citations (i.e., quality of those publications). In other words, the h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output in a cumulative approach and does not provide data regarding the recent productivity. This editorial presents advantages and limitations of h-index that all researchers in health sciences need to be aware of, especially if this metric is used for professional progression, and discusses the simple modification indexed to "academic/scientific age". It is obvious that no single metric is perfect, and the use of two or more metrics is more prone to success.

Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education

INTRODUCTION

Engaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this study seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.

METHOD

In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items adapted from three published surveys: two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale. The outcome variable was a self-reported misconduct score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression modelling.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 590 researchers completed the survey. Results from the final regression model indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct score (b = -0.01, β = -0.22, t = -2.91, p <0.05), suggesting that older researchers tended to report less misconduct. On the other hand, those with more publications had higher misconduct scores (b = 0.001, β = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05) and, compared with researchers in the region of North America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.21, β = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In addition, compared with those who defined their work role as clinician, those who defined their role as researcher tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.12, β = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). Finally, publication pressure emerged as the strongest individual predictor of misconduct (b = 0.20, β = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01); the greater the publication pressure, the greater the reported misconduct. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct score, with publication pressure accounting for 10% of the variance in the outcome, above and beyond the other explanatory variables. Although correlational, these findings suggest several researcher characteristics and practice factors that could be targeted to address scientific misconduct and QRPs in HPE.

Teaching and learning based on peer review: a realistic approach in forensic sciences

Teaching and learning methods need a continuous upgrade in higher education. However it is also true that some of the modern methodologies do not reduce or prevent school failure. Perhaps the real limitation is the inability to identify the true reasons that may explain it or ignore/undervalue the problem. In our opinion, one of the current constraints of the teaching/learning process is the excess of and inadequate bibliography recommended by the teacher, which results in continuous student difficulties and waste of time in searching and selecting useful information. The need to change the paradigm of the teaching/learning process comes also from employers. They claim forensic experts armed with useful knowledge to face professional life. It is therefore mandatory to identify the new needs and opportunities regarding pedagogical methodologies. This article reflects on the recent importance of peer review in teaching/learning forensic sciences based on the last 10 years of pedagogical experience inseparably from the scientific activity.