Automated screening of COVID-19 preprints: can we help authors to improve transparency and reproducibility? | Nature Medicine

“Although automated screening is not a replacement for peer review, automated tools can identify common problems. Examples include failure to state whether experiments were blinded or randomized2, failure to report the sex of participants2 and misuse of bar graphs to display continuous data3. We have been using six tools4,5,6,7,8 to screen all new medRxiv and bioRxiv COVID-19 preprints (Table 1). New preprints are screened daily9. By this means, reports on more than 8,000 COVID preprints have been shared using the web annotation tool hypothes.is (RRID:SCR_000430) and have been tweeted out via @SciScoreReports (https://hypothes.is/users/sciscore). Readers can access these reports in two ways. The first option is to find the link to the report in the @SciScoreReports tweet in the preprint’s Twitter feed, located in the metrics tab. The second option is to download the hypothes.is bookmarklet. In addition, readers and authors can reply to the reports, which also contain information on solutions….”

Automated screening of COVID-19 preprints: can we help authors to improve transparency and reproducibility? | Nature Medicine

“Although automated screening is not a replacement for peer review, automated tools can identify common problems. Examples include failure to state whether experiments were blinded or randomized2, failure to report the sex of participants2 and misuse of bar graphs to display continuous data3. We have been using six tools4,5,6,7,8 to screen all new medRxiv and bioRxiv COVID-19 preprints (Table 1). New preprints are screened daily9. By this means, reports on more than 8,000 COVID preprints have been shared using the web annotation tool hypothes.is (RRID:SCR_000430) and have been tweeted out via @SciScoreReports (https://hypothes.is/users/sciscore). Readers can access these reports in two ways. The first option is to find the link to the report in the @SciScoreReports tweet in the preprint’s Twitter feed, located in the metrics tab. The second option is to download the hypothes.is bookmarklet. In addition, readers and authors can reply to the reports, which also contain information on solutions….”

:From Bioethics to Data Sharing for Transparency in Nursing Research

“Our journal, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (JKAN), adopted data sharing policy in December 2020 (https://www.jkan.or.kr/index.php?body=dataSharing) [

3] which was applied from volume 50 issue 6 after extensive discussion. As editor-in-chief, I would like to inform our readers to enhance their understanding of the data sharing policy….”

:From Bioethics to Data Sharing for Transparency in Nursing Research

“Our journal, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (JKAN), adopted data sharing policy in December 2020 (https://www.jkan.or.kr/index.php?body=dataSharing) [

3] which was applied from volume 50 issue 6 after extensive discussion. As editor-in-chief, I would like to inform our readers to enhance their understanding of the data sharing policy….”

The move to open: medical library leadership in scholarly communication | Shaffer | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and “walking the walk.” In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision “that quality information is essential for improved health.”

 

The move to open: medical library leadership in scholarly communication | Shaffer | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and “walking the walk.” In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision “that quality information is essential for improved health.”

 

Open access to health and education research outside academia: perspectives of research users, research intermediaries and researchers – White Rose eTheses Online

Abstract:  The thesis investigates how publics outside academia engage with ideas of open access (OA) to research publications. To do this, it analyses data from interviews with users of health and education research in two non-academic contexts, as well as with researchers interested in communicating their work to wider audiences. It draws on constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) and situational analysis (Clarke, 2005). The literature review highlighted a need to empirically explore OA outside academia. The study focused on the ways in which publications were accessed and used outside academia and the factors enabling and preventing access. It also explored perceptions of OA within a wider context of communicating research to non- academic audiences, and identified areas of contestation. The study found that there was a demand for OA, although the demand was perceived to be limited. There were significant sources of friction in accessing research publications, including paywalls, which could be circumvented through file/password sharing and drawing on contacts. Conceptual access (e.g. understandability) was also found to prevent engagement with research publications in some cases, although this varied according to levels of expertise. The study identified research intermediaries as playing an important dual role, as they accessed research in order to make it accessible to a wider audience. The study found a disconnect between some OA advocacy and research-user perceptions. and a disconnect between researchers’ commitment to communicating their work outside the academy and their support of OA. Attitudes towards OA were influenced by bureaucratic mandates, high APCs and belief that there would be little demand for their research. Findings indicated however, that OA could complement other forms of research communication in specific contexts. Finally, the study suggested that a narrow focus on ‘tangible outcomes’ for non- academic publics (Moore, 2019) risked obscuring attempts to develop a more equitable scholarly communications system.

 

Max Planck Society, Rockefeller University Press Enter “Read-and-Publish” Transformative Agreement

“Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) has signed an unlimited “read-and-publish” transformative agreement with Rockefeller University Press (RUP) on behalf of the Max Planck Society. The agreement covers Open Access (OA) publishing of articles in RUP’s three hybrid journals: Journal of Cell Biology (JCB), Journal of Experimental Medicine (JEM) and Journal of General Physiology (JGP).

Under the agreement, which runs from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022,  articles by corresponding authors affiliated with Max Planck Institutes will be published immediate open access under a CC-BY license and directly deposited in PubMed Central (PMC). The transformative agreement repurposes former subscription funds to cover all open access publishing fees for authors, and there is no limit to the number of articles that may be published under the terms of the agreement. Max Planck Institutes also receive unlimited access to RUP’s journals. Learn how authors can take advantage of new agreement….”

Watching preprints evolve | Nature Reviews Immunology

“In February 2021, Nature Reviews Immunology launches the first of its monthly ‘Preprint Watch’ columns. Here, we explain the rationale for our coverage of preprints and the precautions we have taken to guard against their improper use….

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated the rapid dissemination of results, has fuelled some of this increase, with approximately one-quarter (463) of the 2020 ‘immunology’ preprints on bioRxiv containing the search term ‘COVID-19’ or ‘SARS-CoV-2’. It also seems clear from these numbers that even in non-pandemic times, preprints are here to stay. At Nature Reviews Immunology, we anticipate that the accelerated acceptance of the value of preprints that has occurred in 2020 will translate to long-term changes in their use, and we are well placed to respond to these changes….

[I]n April 2020 Nature Reviews Immunology began a collaboration with the Precision Immunology Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, USA (the Sinai Immunology Review Project; SIRP)2, to publish short ‘In Brief’ summaries (for example, ref.3) on a weekly basis of the most relevant, new COVID-19-related preprints (for example, ref.4), many of which have since been published in high-profile journals (for example, ref.5). We were mindful of the potential dangers of highlighting and publicizing non-peer-reviewed results, but we were reassured by the system that SIRP had established to scan, filter and review preprints, involving both early career researchers (ECRs) and faculty members. This curation of the preprint literature at a time when journals and editors were overwhelmed with submissions was an essential service to the community, and the training in peer review for ECRs who were shut out of the lab should pay future dividends. In June 2020, a second group from the University of Oxford, UK (the OxImmuno Literature Initiative), operating under a similar system, also began to contribute regular preprint summaries (for example, refs6,7)….

We share your concerns about media reporting of incomplete or misleading data that might damage public trust in science. For this reason, we are maintaining a cautious approach to preprints, covering only a few select papers picked by experts after careful review. …”