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

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.

Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts

The purpose of specialized medical journals is to accurately disseminate the results of new research. The peer-review process is crucial for journals to be able to fulfill this purpose. Although the peer-review determines whether scientific papers are accepted or rejected for publication, for many authors is a not well known process in its entirety. Many journals have focused on educating their audience about how and what is assessed during peer-review, nevertheless, the rate of manuscripts rejected because of easily-avoidable causes related to this, remains high. In this paper, we describe the process that specialized journals use to assess original medical manuscripts and list the main causes of paper rejection. Practicing physicians and medical students who wish to report their research results stand to benefit if they can identify and early avoid on the issues that most often arise during the peer-review process.

High Impact and Highly Cited Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications by Canadian Occupational Therapy Authors: A Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis of high impact and highly cited peer-reviewed literature published between 1992 and 2016 by Canadian occupational therapy authors that were included in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) was completed. To complete the analysis, journal article titles, abstracts, author details, and keywords were searched. A second-filter identified articles where the first or corresponding author had a Canadian affiliation and occupational therapy qualification. The total number of times an article was cited since its initial publication and during 2016 in Web of Science Core Collection was recorded. A total of 919 retrieved articles met the inclusion criteria with 18 articles having 5 or more citations during 2016 alone and another 34 articles having 50 or more citations since their initial publication date. The top three journals where high impact and highly-cited articles were published were Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Disability and Rehabilitation, and American Journal of Occupational Therapy. The three institutions that generated the largest number of high impact and highly cited articles were McGill University, University of Toronto, and University of British Columbia. Therefore, as of 2016, Canadian occupational therapy authors published 18 high impact and 34 highly cited articles.

Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks

Publications determine to a large extent the possibility to stay in academia ("publish or perish"). While some pressure to publish may incentivise high quality research, too much publication pressure is likely to have detrimental effects on both the scientific enterprise and on individual researchers. Our research question was: What is the level of perceived publication pressure in the four academic institutions in Amsterdam and does the pressure to publish differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields? Investigating researchers in Amsterdam with the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, we find that a negative attitude towards the current publication climate is present across academic ranks and disciplinary fields. Postdocs and assistant professors (M = 3.42) perceive the greatest publication stress and PhD-students (M = 2.44) perceive a significant lack of resources to relieve publication stress. Results indicate the need for a healthier publication climate where the quality and integrity of research is rewarded.

While it is not deliberate, much of today's biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action

Biomedical research has advanced swiftly in recent decades, largely due to progress in biotechnology. However, this rapid spread of new, and not always-fully understood, technology has also created a lot of false or irreproducible data and artifacts, which sometimes have led to erroneous conclusions. When describing various scientific issues, scientists have developed a habit of saying "on one hand… but on the other hand…", because discrepant data and conclusions have become omnipresent. One reason for this problematic situation is that we are not always thoughtful enough in study design, and sometimes lack enough philosophical contemplation. Another major reason is that we are too rushed in introducing new technology into our research without assimilating technical details. In this essay, we provide examples in different research realms to justify our points. To help readers test their own weaknesses, we raise questions on technical details of RNA reverse transcription, polymerase chain reactions, western blotting and immunohistochemical staining, as these methods are basic and are the base for other modern biotechnologies. Hopefully, after contemplation and reflection on these questions, readers will agree that we indeed know too little about these basic techniques, especially about the artifacts they may create, and thus many conclusions drawn from the studies using those ever-more-sophisticated techniques may be even more problematic.

Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research

Poorly executed and inadequately reported molecular measurement methods are amongst the causes underlying the lack of reproducibility of much biomedical research. Although several high impact factor journals have acknowledged their past failure to scrutinise adequately the technical soundness of manuscripts, there is a perplexing reluctance to implement basic corrective measures. The reverse transcription real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is probably the most straightforward measurement technique available for RNA quantification and is widely used in research, diagnostic, forensic and biotechnology applications. Despite the impact of the minimum information for the publication of quantitative PCR experiments (MIQE) guidelines, which aim to improve the robustness and the transparency of reporting of RT-qPCR data, we demonstrate that elementary protocol errors, inappropriate data analysis and inadequate reporting continue to be rife and conclude that the majority of published RT-qPCR data are likely to represent technical noise.

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.