Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
EN

Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

Authors : Rodrigo Alejandro-Salinas, Diego A. Maticorena-Quevedo,  Alfonso Barnechea-Rey, Percy Herrera-Añazco, Vicente A. Benites-Zapata

Background 

Orthopedic scientific publications play an important role worldwide. Because of the limited evidence in the Latin American literature, we aimed to evaluate the determinants of scientific publication among Peruvian orthopedics as an approach to the Latin American context.

Methods

Analytical cross-sectional study. Orthopedic specialists and residents were enrolled during the 52nd Peruvian National Congress of Orthopedics and Traumatology. A form validated by experts was applied to collect variables. The crude and adjusted coefficients were calculated using bivariate and multivariate regression with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 310 participants were included in our study. The prevalence of the scientific orthopedic publication was 34.84%. Multivariate regression showed that, working in a private hospitals, having an interest in tumors and pediatric orthopedics, being involved in teaching activity, belonging to a scientific society other than the Peruvian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology, having more than one research project, having an international rotation, and active participation in meetings were factors associated with publishing orthopedic scientific articles, while coming from a university in the highlands as an undergraduate and having more than ten shifts per month was associated with publishing fewer scientific articles. Among residents, having had an international rotation was associated with publishing scientific articles. Conclusions: The determinants of scientific production described will serve to increase scientific production in different contexts considering the orthopedist’s training stage.

URL : Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040052

 

Catégories
EN

Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

Authors : Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans‑Dieter Daniel

At the end of January 2023, eLife introduced a new publishing model (alongside the old-traditional-publishing model): all manuscripts submitted as preprints are peer-reviewed and published if they are deemed worthy of review by the editorial team (“editorial triage”). The model abandons the gatekeeping function and retains the previous “consultative approach to peer review”.

Even under the changed conditions, the question of the quality of judgements in the peer review process remains. In this study, the reviewers’ ratings of manuscripts submitted to eLife were examined in terms of both descriptive comparisons of peer review models, and the following selected quality criteria of peer review: interrater agreement and interrater reliability. eLife provided us with the data on all manuscripts submitted in 2023 according to the new publishing model (group 3, N = 3,846), as well as manuscripts submitted according to the old publishing model (group 1: N = 6,592 submissions from 2019; group 2: N = 364 submissions from 2023).

The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown.

The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised. We used the empirical results of our study to recommend several improvements to the new publishing model introduced by eLife as for example, increasing transparency, masking author identity or increasing the number of expert reviewers.

URL : Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y

Catégories
EN

A decentralized future for the open-science databases

Authors : Gaurav Sharma, Viorel Munteanu, Nika Mansouri Ghiasi, Jineta Banerjee, Susheel Varma, Luca Foschini, Kyle Ellrott, Onur Mutlu, Dumitru Ciorbă, Roel A. Ophoff, Viorel Bostan, Christopher E Mason, Jason H. Moore, Despoina Sousoni, Arunkumar Krishnan, Christopher E. Mason, Mihai Dimian, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Fabio G. Liberante, Taras K. Oleksyk, Serghei Mangul

Continuous and reliable access to curated biological data repositories is indispensable for accelerating rigorous scientific inquiry and fostering reproducible research. Centralized repositories, though widely used, are vulnerable to single points of failure arising from cyberattacks, technical faults, natural disasters, or funding and political uncertainties.

This can lead to widespread data unavailability, data loss, integrity compromises, and substantial delays in critical research, ultimately impeding scientific progress. Centralizing essential scientific resources in a single geopolitical or institutional hub is inherently dangerous, as any disruption can paralyze diverse ongoing research.

The rapid acceleration of data generation, combined with an increasingly volatile global landscape, necessitates a critical re-evaluation of the sustainability of centralized models. Implementing federated and decentralized architectures presents a compelling and future-oriented pathway to substantially strengthen the resilience of scientific data infrastructures, thereby mitigating vulnerabilities and ensuring the long-term integrity of data.

Here, we examine the structural limitations of centralized repositories, evaluate federated and decentralized models, and propose a hybrid framework for resilient, FAIR, and sustainable scientific data stewardship. Such an approach offers a significant reduction in exposure to governance instability, infrastructural fragility, and funding volatility, and also fosters fairness and global accessibility.

The future of open science depends on integrating these complementary approaches to establish a globally distributed, economically sustainable, and institutionally robust infrastructure that safeguards scientific data as a public good, further ensuring continued accessibility, interoperability, and preservation for generations to come.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.19206

Catégories
EN

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

Authors : Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Quentin Le Cornu, Pierre Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, Clément Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, Florian Naudet

Studies with negative results are less likely to be published than others, potentially leading to publication bias. Introduced in 2000, trial registration could have participated in decreasing the proportion of unpublished studies. We assessed the proportion of negative randomized controlled trials (RCT) over the last 20 years.

We searched Medline for RCT published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of negative (final comparison on the primary study-endpoint without statistical significance or favoring the control arm) studies published in 2000 and 2020.

Factors independently associated with the publication of negative studies were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 1,542 studies were included. The proportion of negative RCT significantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (from 27.6% to 37.4%; P = 0.01), however, the trend over time was not significant (P = 0.203). In multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher proportion of published negative studies: superiority (P < 0.001), two-group trials (P < 0.001), number of patients ≥510 (P < 0.001), cardiology trials (P = 0.003), emergency/critical care trials (P < 0.001), obstetrics trials (P = 0.032), surgery trials (P = 0.006), pneumology trials (P = 0.029).

Exclusive industry funding was associated with a lower proportion of published negative studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of published negative studies in 2020 was higher only when compared to 2000. During the two decades, no trend was noticeable. There is no clear relationship between trial registration and the publication of negative results over time.

URL : Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3535

Catégories
EN

Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

Authors : Youngim Jung, Sungsoo Robert Ahn

Research datasets—capturing natural, societal, or artificial phenomena—are critical in generating new scientific insights, validating research models, and supporting data-intensive discovery. Data papers that describe and contextualise these datasets aim to ensure their findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while providing academic credit to data creators.

However, the peer review of data papers and associated datasets presents considerable challenges, requiring reviewers to assess both the syntactic and semantic integrity of the data, metadata quality, and domain-specific scientific relevance. Furthermore, the coordination between journal editors, reviewers, and curators demands substantial effort, often leading to publication delays in the conventional review and then publishing framework.

This study proposes a novel Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model tailored to the synchronised publication and review of data papers and their underlying datasets. Building on preprint and open science practices, the model defines a collaborative, multi-stakeholder workflow involving authors, peer reviewers, data experts, and journal editors.

The PRC model integrates open feedback, transparent peer review, and structured curation to improve research data’s quality, discoverability, and impact. By articulating conceptual and operational workflows, this study contributes a practical framework for modernising data publishing infrastructures and supporting the co-evaluation of narrative and data artefacts.

URL : Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2024

Catégories
FR

TheConversation.com : relais de l’expertise des universitaires et chercheurs au sein de l’espace médiatique

Auteur : Edern Appéré

La crise sanitaire liée au covid-19 a révélé les rapports parfois difficiles entre science et médias. De nombreuses critiques ont été adressées aux médias sur leur traitement de la maladie, notamment sur le manque de connaissances scientifiques des journalistes, leurs difficultés à comprendre et expliquer la science en train de se faire, les choix discutables d’experts sollicités. L’importance pour le grand public de disposer d’informations fiables, vérifiées, provenant de personnes dont c’est le domaine d’expertise, a été plus que jamais mise en lumière.

Fondé en 2011 en Australie, le média TheConversation.com a pour ambition de renouveler la manière dont scientifiques et journalistes travaillent ensemble. Ce média se présente sous la forme d’un site web d’information généraliste qui aborde tous les sujets qui font l’actualité. La principale spécificité de son modèle éditorial est que les articles sont tous rédigés par des chercheurs, assistés de journalistes, dans une démarche de vulgarisation scientifique. Ce modèle original est résumé par la devise « L’expertise universitaire, l’exigence journalistique ».

Ce mémoire, concentré sur l’édition française de The Conversation cherche à répondre aux questions, légitimes, que ce média atypique ne manque de susciter : le contrat de lecture énoncé est-il respecté ? TheConversation.com atteint-il sa promesse de donner la parole aux chercheurs pour informer et éclairer le débat public ?

URL : https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-04965431v1

Catégories
EN

Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

Authors : Angus Lyall, Mark Ortiz, Emily Billo

The largest science publishing corporations, including Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Sage, are key partners for the oil, gas, and coal industries insofar as they distribute scientific research and data that facilitate fossil fuel exploration, production, and distribution.

Critical researchers seldom trace fossil fuels and, in turn, the climate crisis to the publishing corporations that they generally rely upon to distribute their own research. We argue that corporate publishers produce the invisibility of their connections to fossil fuels through changing practices of greenwashing both in the public sphere and within firms.

We detail marketing and management practices in the case of the largest science publisher in the world: Elsevier. On the one hand, we examine evolving forms of green marketing. On the other hand, building on recent calls for political ecologies of labor, we highlight the proliferation of ‘greenwashing rituals’ within the firm – i.e., performative, management-sponsored dialogues and actions regarding climate change.

We suggest that researchers continue to expand frameworks for critiquing the fossil fuel industry to include auxiliary industries such as corporate publishing.

URL : Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.6276