Sunday, April 10, 2016

A: ESE Author Q&A: Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta



For the second instalment of our ESE Authors interview series, we spoke to psychiatrist, Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta of Gandhi Medical College, Musheerabad, India.

Professor Bipeta is a consultant psychiatrist, at a private practice in Hyderabad since 2002. He is Associate Editor for the Indian Journal of PsychologicalMedicine, and sits on the Editorial Boards for Telangana Journal of Psychiatry and Academic Psychiatry. He has also just stepped down after five years of serving as Editor-in-Chief for the biomedical publication Andhra Pradesh Journal of Psychological Medicine.and is now a senior Advisor to the journal.







He has extensive experience of the editorial process, which makes him well qualified to produce the original article published in European Science Editing 41(3): Medical Editing in India. The paper includes reference to Prof. Bipeta’s experience, case studies, guidelines resources and recommendations.

The article is now free to access from the EASE website. Download it here.

EASE:  Please introduce our readers to your ESE article.

Rajshekhar Bipeta:  I discussed the current status of medical editing in India. Though, we have a huge patient pool and our researchers have good calibre, this is not being properly documented. There is a lack of local databases such as PubMED, Scopus, etc. IndMED is a prestigious ICMR database of medical journals. However, many internationally acclaimed PubMED journals are not indexed with IndMED. I also gave few suggestions to the Indian editors that they can utilize to improve the global presence of Indian journals. The authors need to be more aware of publication ethics which I highlighted through case vignettes.

EASE: What is your main area of research?

RB:  Psychiatry. My areas of special interest are: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Neuro-psychiatric rating scales and assessment schedules; Psychiatric and bio-psycho-social aspects of HIV/AIDS; Insight in psychiatric disorders; Suicidality, impulsivity, and aggression 

EASE:  How long have you been involved in this area?

RB:  For the past 16 years, especially since 2002.

EASE: What are some of the innovative aspects you could tell us about your research?

RB:  Obsessive-compulsive disorder is my most important area of research. This is a fascinating illness, with varied presentation. I am interested in researching hitherto unexplored aspects of this illness.

EASE: What do you feel are your most significant research achievements?

RB:  As an editor of a small, local journal, under the guidance of the editorial board and the society, we could enhance the standards of our journal to a high level. We could put research ethics in place. I consider this as my most significant research achievement. I was fortunate to be guided actively by my society.

EASE: What do you consider to be your best paper or work, and why?

RB:  I consider this my best paper:
Bipeta R, Yerramilli SSRR, Karredla AR, Srinath G.Diagnostic stability of internet addiction in obsessive‑compulsive disorder:data from a naturalistic one‑year treatment study. Innov Clin Neurosci 2015;12(3-4):14–23.

Most of the research in the field of so-called ‘internet addiction’ has been done by non-medical people, especially non-mental health professionals. I consider this the fallacy of internet addiction research. To say that an entity is a disorder, the research should be done by experts and professionals in that field. I encourage readers to go through my editorial:
BipetaR. Mental health research is not just administering rating scales. AP J PsycholMed 2013; 14(2): 65-8.         

In my opinion, there is nothing like ‘internet addiction disorder’; this is a hype.

EASE: Do you have any interesting work or papers that maybe completed in the next year or so that you are able to speak about?

RB:  I am doing some original work in the field of OCD, social anxiety disorder, stigma in psychiatric illness, etc. I hope to see these in print soon.

EASE: Are you a member of EASE?

RB:  Yes, I am a sponsored member of EASE. I am fortunate to be sponsored thrice by Dr Joan Marsh, the former President of EASE. It is very difficult for researchers from developing countries like India to seek paid membership of such organizations. I am extremely thankful to Dr Marsh.     

EASE:  How long have you known about, or been involved with the Association?

RB:  Around three years.

EASE:  Have you been involved in any EASE-related projects in the past? If so, could you tell us about them?

RB:  Yes. I volunteer for the
(EASE) certification and training group

EASE:  Will you be attending the conference in Strasbourg in June this year?

RB:  No, unfortunately. I am not in a position to attend this meeting.

EASE:  What motivated you to write for ESE?

RB:  Dr Joan Marsh asked me to contribute an essay to ESE. She asked me to write on ‘medical editing in India’ as not much is available regarding this topic from this country. Frankly, I was initially nervous to write on this topic as nothing much was available for me to cite.  I did not know what was expected of me. However, I am happy with final product. I am thankful to the reviewers for their constructive critical comments which helped me revise my manuscript.

EASE:  What impact do you hope this paper could have, what changes could it make?

RB:  I gave few recommendations in this paper that I forwarded to Indian editors and authorities. I hope they take it seriously.  

EASE:  If people want to read more about this subject, can you name one or two specific articles they should read?

RB:  I recommend these articles:

Satyanarayana K, Sharma A. Biomedical Journals in India: Some criticalconcerns. Indian Journal of Medical Research 2010; 132: 119-122.

Agoramoorthy G. Urgent reforms needed to revive impact factor of India’smedical journals. Indian Journal of Medical Research 2008; 127: 410-412. 

Aggarwal, R., Gogtay, N., Kumar, R., & Sahni, P. (2016). The revisedguidelines of the Medical Council of India for academic promotions: need for arethink. Indian Journal Of Medical Ethics, 13(1), 2.


EASE:  Are there any websites or other resources related to your paper they should seek out?

RB:  I recommend these websites:

National Databases of Indian Medical Journals (
IndMED): http://indmed.nic.in

Medical Council of India, guidelines for faculty promotion:
http://www.mciindia.org/circulars/Circular-03.09.2015-TEQ-Promotion-Publication.pdf

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find Professor Bipeta’s article in the full August issue of the ESE Journal archive on the EASE website here. His ORCiD profile can be found here.


Previous interviews in the ESE Author Q&A series can be found here


Interview conducted by Duncan Nicholas of the EASE Council.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

B - Peer review under the spotlight

Banks M. Peer review under the spotlight. Physics World 2016;29(2):12-13

The article discusses the increasing difficulties facing peer review and discusses various possible solutions including double blind peer review, open peer review and payment of reviewers and other possible ways of incentivizing reviewers.
http://live.iop-pp01.agh.sleek.net/2016/01/27/peer-review-under-the-spotlight/
(Thanks to John Glen)

 

Friday, April 1, 2016

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 - Health-related data protection

Dove ES, Thompson B, Knoppers BM. A step forward for data protection and biomedical research. The Lancet 2016;387(10026):1374-1375

A European General Data Protection Regulation that is favourable for research was agreed by Member States and Parliament in December 2015. The Regulation deems health-related data and genetic data as so-called special categories of sensitive data, subject to increased restrictions. However, researchers can use these data without consent as long as it is permitted under EU or Member State law and appropriate safeguards are in place. The Regulation facilitates the reuse of data for research, even where the data were collected for another purpose.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30078-2/abstract


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

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

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