Excerpt: “Free Open Access Meducation (FOAM) is a novel and expanding method of communicating best practice and research findings. FOAM refers to blogs, podcasts, websites, applications and other freely available resources used for medical education. Given its accessibility for potential authors, removal of funding needs and independence from large institutions, FOAM may be less subject to gender bias than traditional publishing methods. We, as a group of medical students who frequently use FOAM, collaborated with two paediatricians who develop FOAM resources, in order to assess and discuss the extent of gender bias in paediatric FOAM. Our team is actively working towards gender equality in medicine, most notably through Dr Knight’s work as co-founder of Women Speakers in Healthcare and founder of www.paediatricfoam.com.
To our knowledge, there is no previously published work investigating gender bias within FOAM. FOAM’s novel nature provides a unique opportunity to recognise, assess and tackle potential gender bias before FOAM becomes more institutionalised. To this end, we conducted a study collecting data on author gender within paediatric peer-reviewed and FOAM sources….”
Excerpt: “We would argue that comparing peer-reviewed journal publications with FOAM is not a like-for-like comparison as, for the former, the number of males or females submitting articles is not known. This is relevant as in FOAM the authorship comes from a generally fixed pool of contributors and one of the FOAM websites cited (Pediatric EM Morsels) has a single male author. A potential alternative method could have looked at paediatric FOAM sites with more than two authors, for example this would have included the analysis of three platforms with 59% (DFTB), 56% (Pediatric EM), and 50% (Paediatric FOAM) female authors….”
“The Medical Institutional Repositories in Libraries (MIRL) planning committee is now accepting proposals for the inaugural Medical Institutional Repositories in Libraries (MIRL) Symposium, which will take place virtually on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 (time to be determined).
The deadline for submitting proposals is September 3, 2021….”
“Public Health Scotland (PHS) has collaborated with Higher Education Institutions to create a comprehensive repository for COVID-19 Research in Scotland.
The repository, which contains research about COVID-19 in Scotland in a range of formats, is a fully accessible and searchable digital resource.
The creation of a fully searchable COVID-19 Research Repository reduces duplication of effort and makes research easier for policymakers, researchers and the public to find and use.
By providing easy access to recently published research on COVID-19 in Scotland on a single shared platform, PHS hopes to enhance the visibility of leading research and promote Scottish research to a national and international audience….”
An examination of highly visible COVID-19 research articles reveals that 55% could be considered at risk of bias.
Only 11% of the evaluated early studies on COVID-19 adhered to good standards of reporting such as PRISMA or CONSORT.
There was no correlation between quality of reporting and either the journal Impact Factor or the article Altmetric Attention Score in early studies on COVID-19.
Most highly visible early articles on COVID-19 were published in the Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association.”
Abstract: The Functional Annotation of ANimal Genomes (FAANG) project is a worldwide coordinated action creating high-quality functional annotation of farmed and companion animal genomes. The generation of a rich genome-to-phenome resource and supporting informatic infrastructure advances the scope of comparative genomics and furthers the understanding of functional elements. The project also provides terrestrial and aquatic animal agriculture community powerful resources for supporting improvements to farmed animal production, disease resistance, and genetic diversity. The FAANG Data Portal (https://data.faang.org) ensures Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) open access to the wealth of sample, sequencing, and analysis data produced by an ever-growing number of FAANG consortia. It is developed and maintained by the FAANG Data Coordination Centre (DCC) at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI). FAANG projects produce a standardised set of multi-omic assays with resulting data placed into a range of specialised open data archives. To ensure this data is easily findable and accessible by the community, the portal automatically identifies and collates all submitted FAANG data into a single easily searchable resource. The Data Portal supports direct download from the multiple underlying archives to enable seamless access to all FAANG data from within the portal itself. The portal provides a range of predefined filters, powerful predictive search, and a catalogue of sampling and analysis protocols and automatically identifies publications associated with any dataset. To ensure all FAANG data submissions are high-quality, the portal includes powerful contextual metadata validation and data submissions brokering to the underlying EMBL-EBI archives. The portal will incorporate extensive new technical infrastructure to effectively deliver and standardise FAANG’s shift to single-cellomics, cell atlases, pangenomes, and novel phenotypic prediction models. The Data Portal plays a key role for FAANG by supporting high-quality functional annotation of animal genomes, through open FAIR sharing of data, complete with standardised rich metadata. Future Data Portal features developed by the DCC will support new technological developments for continued improvement for FAANG projects.
“Many academic societies are currently undergoing this transition [to OA], and in the process, some major international publishers are double dipping, charging high subscription fees as well as expensive APCs. We strongly support open science initiatives and have long sought to move JPR to be a fully open journal. However, if we had continued to publish under Elsevier, moving to a fully open journal would have resulted in significant costs for both the authors and Japan Prosthodontic Society (JPS). After much discussion, we have finally made a decision regarding this crucial issue.
In 2021, JPS changed publishers, moving from Elsevier to J-STAGE, which now publishes JPR as a full-OA journal….”
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recently presented the UNESCO Science Report 2021 titled The Race against Time for Smarter Development ahead of the G7 meeting. In the series, the organisation observes worldwide developments in science policy. The current report describes in essays and studies how different countries are using science to realise a digitally and environmentally smart future. In the essay The Time for Open Science is Now, the authors argue, among other things, for the expansion of open science and open access. That way, they point out, science and research can contribute their full potential to sustainable development in the face of climate change and pandemics.
“Nearly 6000 clinical trial results are currently missing from the European trial registry, despite transparency rules requiring countries to upload results within 12 months of trial completion, a report has found.1
Researchers from the University of Oxford said the findings show that medicines regulators in the 14 European countries included in the report have failed to ensure that important data on new drugs and vaccines are rapidly and consistently made public….”
The aim of this study is to compare the annual SJR and to evaluate the other parameters that show the scientific effect of journals in terms of open access (OA) or subscription access (SA) in the field of obstetrics and gynecology according to the SCImago database.
Material and methods:This study was conducted between September-December 2019 at Near East University. The SCImago Journal & Country Rank database was used to collect information about the journals. We evaluated and compared the changes in the one-year SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) and journal impact factor (JIF) of OA and SA journals.
Results:Data from 183 scientific journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology from the period between 1999 and 2018 were evaluated, where 140 of these journals were SA and 43 were OA. The average SJR of OA journals in 1999 was 0.17, while it was 0.38 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.31 and 0.78 for OA and SA journals, respectively. In the comparison of JIF, the average of the OA journals in 1999 was 0.09, while it was 0.66 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.80 and 1.93 for OA and SA journals, respectively.
Conclusions:Access to information has become easier due to technological developments and this will continue to affect the access policies of journals. Despite the disadvantages of predator journals, the rise of OA journals in terms of number and quality is likely to continue.
Scholarly journals are hubs of hypotheses, evidence-based data, and practice recommendations that shape health research and practice worldwide. The advancement of science and information technologies has made online accessibility a basic requirement, paving the way for the advent of open access publishing, and more recently, to web-based health journalism. Especially in the time of the current pandemic, health professionals have turned to the internet, and primarily to social media, as a source of rapid information transfer and international communication. Hence, the current pandemic has ushered an era of digital transformation of science, and we attempt to understand and assess the impact of this digitization on modern health journalism.
“We show that OA publication does not affect citations or scientometric indexes of rheumatology journals….When choosing a rheumatology journal to publish OA, rheumatologists should consider individual OA citation patterns and APC charges together.”
Abstract: Access to randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocols is necessary for the interpretation and reproducibility of the study results, but protocol availability has been lacking. We determined the prevalence of protocol availability for all published cancer RCTs in January 2020. We found that only 36.1% (48/133) of RCTs had an accessible protocol and only 11.3% of RCTs (15/133) had a publicly accessible protocol that was not behind a paywall. Only 18.0% (24/133) of RCTs were published in conjunction with the protocol on the journal website. In conclusion, few cancer RCTs have an accessible research protocol. Journals should require publication of RCT protocols along with manuscripts to improve research transparency.
The key theme of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda is “Leaving No-one Behind”; the pandemic has highlighted the urgency of addressing disproportionate barriers and disparities that various minority groups are experiencing.
Experts say the COVID-19 virus is likely to be around for some time, even with vaccines, as it continues to spread and mutate. There are still many unknowns, so it’s important to keep researching the coronavirus. That’s why IEEE is making thousands of COVID-related research documents that have been published in its journals available for free.