Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries

On the Occasion of the Symposium "Scientometry, Citation, Plagiarism and Predatory in Scientific Publishing", Sarajevo, 2021

12th Days of the Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AMNuBiH) this year were organized together with the International Academy of Sciences and Arts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo on December 4, 2021. The title of the symposium was "Scientometry, Citation, Plagiarism and Predatory in Scientific Publishing". Experiences in the scientific area covered by title of this conference were presented by some of the most influential scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are included between 2% of authors in the Stanford scientometric list, which was published in October 2021 in the journal Biology Plos. Some of the authors are former or current Editors-in-Chiefs of indexed biomedical journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia (Izet Masic, Asim Kurjak, Doncho Donev, Osman Sinanovic). Also, Sylwia Ufnalska and Izet Masic are or were members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and they have great experiences about the topic of this conference. Science that analyzes scientific papers and their citation in the scientific journals - called scientometrics - day by day has become important for measuring scientific validity and quality of all kinds of publications deposited in the most important on-line scientific databases, like WoS, Scopus, Medline, PubMed Central, Embase, Hinari, etc., but also in academic platforms ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Scientometrics use the Impact and Echo factor for measuring the quality of publications in WoS journals, Scopus uses the h-Index, and the most common one used in the last 10 years is Google Scholar index. All of them have advantages and disadvantages, and also positive and negative influences in the academic praxis. One of the greatest, and sadly too common, problems which participants in the academic process encountered are plagiarism and predatory publishing. In order to prevent this severest form of academic fraud, authors must give credit to someone whose work has helped him/her by citing references correctly. This presentations of the symposium "SWEP 2021") analyzed the major components of scientometrics, the basic mechanisms of citations in medical publications and plagiarism, as an opposition to the primary goal of scientific enterprise: search for truth.

Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices

BACKGROUND

Although scientometry gradually became prevalent way of measuring one's research output, there are many inherent drawbacks in main indices that are used: impact factor, number of citations, number of published papers and Hirsch's index.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze effects of inflated co-authorship on values of scientometric indices among authors in biomedicine who participated in published papers with more than 30 co-authors.

METHODS

The study was of cross-sectional type, based on 100 publications randomly extracted from the MEDLINE database. The inclusion criterion was publication with more than 30 authors. The studies with topics not related to humans were excluded from further analysis.

RESULTS

On average about 10% of papers published by the surveyed authors had more than 30 co-authors, but these papers brought more than 40% of all citations and more than 40% of Hirsch's index attributed to these authors. The duration of scientific activity was well correlated to number of citations, Hirsch's index and the number of publications themselves with 30 or less co-authors, while the correlation did not exist with number of citations, Hirsch's index and the number of publications with more than 30 authors. In summary, publications with > 30 authors carry more scientometric points than publications with less co-authors, and the researchers with shorter scientific activity had larger scientometric benefit from publications with more than 30 authors than senior researchers.

CONCLUSION

Unjustified and prolific co-authorship is one of methods for inflation of scientometric indices that are not further reflecting true quality of research output of an individual. Further improvement of scientometric indicators may prevent unjustified co-authorship if it reflects the work invested in a research result.

Comparative Analysis of Web of Science and Pubmed Indexed Medical Journals Published in Former Yugoslav Countries

INTRODUCTION

The source of scientific information, methods for their evaluation, and methodology of their use are critical for serious scientific research and publishing of the scientific research results. Certain methodological principles should be inexcusably followed when designing clinical or observational research to avoid bias and presentation of results that do not reflect the truth about the phenomenon that is the object of the study.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality of clinical trials and observational studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav countries indexed in Web of Science (WoS) and Pubmed/MEDLINE.

METHODS

Clinical studies published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries were retrieved from the WoS and Pubmed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. The rate of the most common errors in the design of clinical/observational studies was established by a careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Number and percent of the evaluated studies that failed to meet each of the methodological criteria tested, number of the evaluated criteria not satisfied per database and number of studies that satisfied more than 4 criteria were analyzed per database. When explanatory potential of journal impact factor, number of citations, time elapsed from publication and a database where a journal is referred were tested by linear regression in regard to the number of methodological criteria satisfied per study, the linear regression model was obtained by backward deletion method and achieved R2 adjusted of 0.166 (F=13.827, df1 = 2, df2 = 127, p=0.000). The methodological quality of studies was directly related to impact factor of the journals (B = 0.976, 95% confidence interval 0.539 - 1.413, p=0.000) and inversely with the database where a journal is referred (B =-0.444, 95% confidence interval-0.824 - -0.064, p = 0.022). Each additional unit of impact factor increased number of satisfied methodological criteria for about 1, while referring a journal only in WoS decreased number of satisfied criteria for 0.45 points in comparison with journals referred in both WoS and Pubmed/MEDLINE, and for 0.9 points in comparison to journals referred only in MEDLINE.

CONCLUSION

Methodological and scientometric quality of clinical studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav region varies significantly, and the variations are higher in journals referenced only in WoS than in journals referenced in Pubmed/MEDLINE only, or in both Pubmed and Web of Science databases.

Guidelines for Editing Biomedical Journals: Recommended by Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Background:

Enormous number of medical journals published around the globe requires standardization of editing practice.

Objective:

The aim of this article was to enlist main principles of editing biomedical scientific journals adopted at annual meeting of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia & Herzegovina (AMSB&H).

Methods:

The evidence for writing this Guideline was systematically searched for during September 2020 in the PUBMED and GOOGLE SCHOLAR databases. The inclusion criteria were: original studies, systematic reviews, invited expert opinions, guidelines and editorials. The exclusion criteria were narrative reviews and uninvited opinion articles. The retrieved evidence was analyzed by members of the AMSB&H, then discussed at 2020 annual meeting of the AMSB&H and adopted by nominal group technique.

Results:

In total 14 recommendations were made, based on A to C class of evidence. The editors should educate potential authors and instruct them how to structure their manuscript, how to write every segment of the manuscript, and take care about correct use of statistical tests. Plagiarism detection softwares should be used regularly, and statistical and technical editing should be rigorous and thorough. International standards of reporting specific types of studies should be followed, and principles of ethical and responsible behavior of editors, reviewers and authors should be published on the journal’s web site. The editors should insist on registration of clinical studies before submission, and check whether non-essential personal information is removed from the articles; when essential personal information has to be included, an article should not be published without signed informed consent by the patient to whom these information relate.

Conclusions:

Principles of editing biomedical scientific journals recommended in this guideline should serve as one of the means of improving medical journals’ quality.