B - Sex and gender equity in research: SAGER guidelines

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, et al. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016;1:2
(doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6)

This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.
https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

B - What makes a good policy paper

Whitty JM. What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Medicine 2015;13:301
(doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8)

Getting relevant science and research into policy is essential. There are several barriers, but the easiest to reduce is making papers more relevant and accessible to policymakers. Opinion pieces backed up by footnotes are generally unusable for policy. Objective, rigorous, simply written original papers from multiple disciplines with data can be very helpful.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8

B - OA and knowledge translation

Adisesh A, Whiting A. Power to the people - open access publishing and knowledge translation. Occupational Medicine 2016;66:264-265
(doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv191)

This Editorial attempts to demystify the rights and wrongs of self-archiving and explains some of the issues around open access (OA) publishing. There are essentially three major publication options for authors: no cost for publication in a subscription-based journal; OA journal publication where there may be an article processing charge (APC) paid by or on behalf of the authors; and publication in a hybrid journal where a subscription journal provides the option for OA publication upon payment of an APC. Occupational Medicine recognized the need for open access as early as 2007, when it became a ‘hybrid’ journal.
http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/4/264.long

B - OA publishing trend analysis

Poltronieri E, Bravo E, Curti M, et al. Open access publishing trend analysis: statistics beyond the perception. Information Research 2016;21(2), paper 712.

This analysis aimed to track the number of OA journals acquiring impact factor, and to investigate the distribution of subject categories pertaining to these journals in the period 2010-2012. Results showed a growth of OA scholarly publishing, with a prevalence for journals relating to medicine and biological science disciplines.
http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/paper712.html#.V2PI9P8cQuQ

B - Open access impact

Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016;5:632
(doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.1)

This review aims to be a resource for current knowledge on the impacts of Open Access by synthesizing important research in three major areas of impact: academic, economic and societal. The evidence points to a favorable impact of OA on the scholarly literature through increased dissemination and reuse. Access to the research literature is key for innovative enterprises, and a range of governmental and non-governmental services, and it has the potential to save publishers and research funders considerable amounts of financial resources. Furthermore, OA contibutes to advance citizen science initiatives and researchers in developing countries.
http://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v1

B - How to make published science more rigorous

Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, et al. A tragedy of errors. Nature 2016; 530:27-29

In this article the authors summarized their experience, the main barriers they encountered, and their thoughts on how to make published science more rigorous. They outlined the following problems: editors are often unable or reluctant to take speedy and appropriate action; where to send expressions of concern is unclear; journals that acknowledged invalidating errors are reluctant to issue retractions; journals charge authors to correct others' mistakes; and no standard mechanism exists to request raw data.
http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-a-tragedy-of-errors-1.19264

B - Overpowering images

Redberg RF. Overpowering images. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(1):17
(doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6933)

While there has been an exponential increase in medical imaging, there are few data demonstrating improvements in outcome, and imaging that requires ionizing radiation is known to be harmful. The “slippery slope” story of Dr Michael Barry et al illustrates one of the unintended harms of graphic imaging: dramatic pictures make clinicians (and patients) more likely to want to “do something” instead of considering a more conservative therapy. This story underlines the importance of treating the patient and not the laboratory test or the image.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26618668

B - Reporting P values in the biomedical literature

Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AH, et al. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990-2015. JAMA 2016;315(11):1141-1148
(doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.1952)

Many research fields in biomedicine and other disciplines use statistical testing methods that report P values to convey inferences about study results. There is increasing concern that P values are often misused, misunderstood, and miscommunicated, and there is mounting evidence from diverse fields that reporting biases tend to preferentially select the publication and highlighting of results that are statistically significant, as opposed to “negative” results. Such biases could have major implications for the reliability of the published scientific literature. In this analysis of P values reported in MEDLINE abstracts and in PMC articles from 1990-2015, more MEDLINE abstracts and articles reported P values over time, almost all abstracts and articles with P values reported statistically significant results and, in a subgroup analysis, few articles included confidence intervals, Bayes factors, or effect sizes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26978209

B - Core competencies for scientific editors

Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Medicine 2016;14:16
(doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2)

This scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of scientific editors of biomedical journals. It informs readers on the extent and nature of existing literature in this area, as well as the breadth of skills, abilities, tasks, knowledge, and training that may be necessary to fulfill the position of scientific editor. More importantly, the review is part of a larger program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2

B - Predatory open access

Shen C, Bjork B. "Predatory" open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 2015;13:230

(doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2)

The so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. The authors of this article used a multistage stratified sampling method to take a look into the predatory publishers and journals on Beall’s list and generated their development trend over time. They found that the problems caused by predatory journals are limited to just a few countries, where the academic evaluation practices strongly favor international publication, but without further quality checks.They believe that the publishing volumes in such journals will cease growing in the near future.
http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

B - Gender-inequality problem in science

Hilton D. Practical policies can combat gender inequality. Nature 2015;523:7

How can science address the gender-inequality problem? According to the author, Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne (Australia), the mechanisms helping researchers balance work and home lives have made a positive difference to the gender balance at his Institute. For example, they demand that at least half of speakers at conferences organized by the Institute are women, and they created a gender-equality committee to monitor implementation of policies.
http://www.nature.com/news/practical-policies-can-combat-gender-inequality-1.17856

B - Peer review and research data

Murphy F. An update on peer review and research data. Learned Publishing 2016;29(1):51-53
(doi: 10.1002/leap.1005)

Technological advances in the amounts of data that researchers generate and use are causing problems for the scholarly communication system. How, when and by whom should quality checks and assurance be integrated into this – already overloaded – ecosystem? This paper outlines the challenges, illustrates some current initiatives and posits possible directions for the future.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1005/full

B - Monitoring the transition to open access

Jubb M, Goldstein S, Amin M, et al. Monitoring the transition to open access. A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. Research Information Network August 2015; 105 p.

Reliable indicators should be gathered on key features of the transition to open access (OA) in the UK. The findings presented in the report from this study are a first attempt at generating such indicators covering five sets of issues: OA options available to authors; accessibility; usage; financial sustainability for universities; and financial sustainability for learned societies.
http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Full-report-FINAL-AS-PUBLISHED.pdf

B - The Resource Identification Initiative

Bandrowski A, Brush M, Grethe JS, et al. The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing. Journal of Comparative Neurology 2016;524(1):8-22
(doi: 10.1002/cne.23913)

The Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the Methods sections of articles and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their articles prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26599696

B - Hijacking a journal

Bohannon J. How to hijack a journal. Science 2015;350(6263):903-905
(doi: 10.1126/science.350.6263.903)

In the past few years fraudsters are snatching entire web addresses, right out from under academic publishers, erecting fake versions of their sites, and hijacking their journals, along with their web traffic. The usual method is to build a convincing version of a website at a similar address and then drive web traffic to the fake site. Unsuspecting visitors who log into the hijacked journal sites might give away passwords or money as they try to pay subscriptions or article processing fees.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6263/903.summary

B - Retraction policies of top journals

Resnik DB, Wager E, Kissling GE. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2015;103(3):136-9
(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006)

The purpose of this study was to provide updated information on the retraction policies of major science journals. The specific aims were to: (1) determine the percentage of the top 200 science journals ranked by impact factor that have a retraction policy; (2) analyze the content of journal retraction policies; and (3) ascertain whether having a retraction policy is associated with impact factor, scientific discipline, or status as a review journal. Results showed that the majority of journals had a retraction policy, and almost all of them would retract an article without the authors’ permission. COPE’s guidelines appear to have had a significant influence on journal retraction policies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511053/

B - The end of journals

Krumholz HM. The end of journals. Circulation  e-pub Nov. 10, 2015
(doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002415)

According to the author, there are at least 9 deficiencies in the current publication model that fuel the sense that journals as we have known them are approaching their final act. Among them: the publication process is too long; the expense of publishing is growing rapidly; the configuration of articles prohibits a comprehensive and in-depth approach to a scientific question; peer review and the journal decision-making process occur without much external scrutiny and transparency; and so on.

 http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/11/09/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002415.full.pdf+html

B - Negative results

Teixeira da Silva JA. Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 2015;14:12
(doi: 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9)

Not all negative results in science get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing framework that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published.

http://www.jnrbm.com/content/14/1/12

B - Can a medical researcher have too many publications?

Jorm AF. Can a medical researcher have too many publications? The Medical Journal of Australia 2015;203(5):230-1
(doi: 10.5694/mja15.00194)

Most prolific researchers may not be adhering to authorship guidelines: the author argues that very high publication rates should be seen as indicating poor authorship practices and should be discounted in evaluating track record.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/5/can-medical-researcher-have-too-many-publications

B - How to improve the medical research literature

Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Medicine 2015;12(9):e1001864
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864)

The authors discuss four potential contributory actions by journals and educational institutions to help increase the value of research articles: publications officers, core competency training of medical editors, training authors to write articles “fit for purpose” , and training peer reviewers. All four ideas need to be piloted and evaluated, and if proven effective, considered for implementation. For ease of presentation and discussion, these ideas are presented separately. At the end, a discussion of possible ways to fund these initiatives.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864