Category Archives: oa.medicine

Do Articles Shared by Academic Medicine Social Media Influencers Drive Future Citation Rates? – Urology

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Objectives

To assess the role of influential figures within social media (SoMe) in driving future citations.

 

Methods

All original articles published in the Journal of Urology (JU) and European Urology (EU) in 2018 were identified. For each article, number of mentions on any SoMe platform, article’s Twitter reach, and total citations were collected. Article characteristics such as type of study, article topic, and open access status were identified. Total academic research output was obtained for first and last authors of included articles.

 

Influential SoMe figures were defined as users that tweeted about included articles and had over 2000 followers. For these accounts, we collected total followers, total tweets, engagement statistics, verification status, and academic characteristics such as total citations and total prior publications. The impact of social media, article, and academic characteristics on future citations was assessed using panel data regression analysis.

 

Results

We identified 394 articles with 8,895 total citations and 460 SoMe influencers. On panel data regression modeling, tweets about a specific article were associated with future citations (0.17 citations per tweet about an article, p<0.001). SoMe influencer characteristics were not associated with increased citations (p>0.05).

The following non-SoMe-associated characteristics were predictive of future citations (p<0.001): study type (prospective studies received 12.9 more citations than cross-sectional studies), open access status (4.3 citations more if open access, p<0.001), and previously well-published first and last authors.

 

Conclusions

While SoMe posts are associated with increased visibility and higher future citation rates, SoMe influencers do not appear to drive these outcomes. Instead, high quality and accessibility were more predictive of future citability.

Frontiers | Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: ethical considerations

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Genomics research holds the potential to improve healthcare. Yet, a very low percentage of the genomic data used in genomics research internationally relates to persons of African origin. Establishing a large-scale, open access genomics database of South Africans may contribute to solving this problem. However, this raises various ethics concerns, including privacy expectations and informed consent. The concept of open consent offers a potential solution to these concerns by (a) being explicit about the research participant’s data being in the public domain and the associated privacy risks, and (b) setting a higher-than-usual benchmark for informed consent by making use of the objective assessment of prospective research participants’ understanding. Furthermore, in the South African context—where local culture is infused with Ubuntu and its relational view of personhood—community engagement is vital for establishing and maintaining an open access genomics database of South Africans. The South African National Health Research Ethics Council is called upon to provide guidelines for genomics researchers—based on open consent and community engagement—on how to plan and implement open access genomics projects.

 

A Milestone for OJSM – Bruce Reider, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

“Ten years later, the scientific publishing landscape had changed. Online publishing of medical journals had expanded tremendously and become the norm. Many readers, especially “digital natives,” primarily or exclusively accessed journal content electronically. Thus, a journal that was published solely online had the potential to be read widely and to enjoy reduced production costs. Outside of orthopaedics, open access journals in medicine and other scientific fields had demonstrated that a journal could be successfully financed via article processing charges (APCs) paid by the research sponsors, foundation grants, the authors’ institutions, or the authors themselves. Prominent journals such as Nature had begun to establish open access affiliates. I thought that the time was right to introduce the open access publishing model to the orthopaedic sports medicine community.

Together with our publishing consultant Morna Conway, I developed a plan for an open access affiliate for AJSM. Our publisher, Sage, was just entering the world of open access publishing in other fields and was enthusiastic about the idea….

If there was any skepticism about the open access concept in the orthopaedic community when OJSM first appeared, it seems to have evaporated. OJSM has received over 8000 submissions in its first decade, and the number continues to increase annually. More than 200,000 OJSM full-text articles are now downloaded monthly, clear evidence of the popularity of its content and the benefit of free, immediate access….”

Increasing agility and visibility in scientific publishing – Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Posted on by
Reply

“Since its inception, AE&M aimed to establish itself as a leading source of high-quality scienti?c information in the areas of endocrinology and metabolism ( 1 ). In that sense, maintaining open access to our articles was paramount to amplify the reach of such information in a globalized, albeit inequitable, world ( 2 ). Aiming to continue to serve the community of readers, authors, and reviewers in the best possible way, two new implementations are underway: AE&M has joined PubMed Central (PMC), and from May 2023, AE&M will adopt the continuous publication model.

 

AE&M’s incorporation into PMC re?ects its growth and scienti?c relevance in the ?eld. PMC is a free full-text repository of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM), directly linked to its preeminent search engine. Created in 2000, it houses more than 7.6 million records and, like SciELO, PMC-indexed journals make their issues and articles available in full format. Its global reach will certainly bring even more visibility and prominence to the research ?ndings published in AE&M….”

ImmPRes

Posted on by
Reply

“The Immunological Proteomic Resource (ImmPRes) originated from a collaboration between the Laboratory for Quantitative Proteomics and the Division of Cell Signalling & Immunology within the School of Life Sciences at the University of Dundee. ImmPRes is an open access public resource created with the aim to provide an in-depth, high quality, quantitative map of the immuno proteome. It integrates proteomic data generated by large-scale quantitative mass-spectrometry of murine immune cell populations….”

Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology | International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Objective To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.

Method A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980–2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.

Results Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018–2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%–41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5–5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6–2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).

Conclusion OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.

Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Posted on by
Reply

“Traditionally, research results were first shared within the scientific community, and then ‘translated’ into lay language for policymakers and other audiences via the media, policy briefs, lobbying. Today, preprints6 and press releases7 often come first. Dissemination of research findings to research participants and communities requires contextualised approaches and have been explored elsewhere.4 Similarly, trial registries8 and data sharing are explored elsewhere in this series. Here, we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by dissemination through peer-review publications, abstracts, preprints, press release, media coverage and social media…”

Social media and academic surgical research dissemination – Surgery

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Academic research dissemination has evolved tremendously throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. With the advent of new technology and remote communication, the fast and efficient sharing of ideas has spread worldwide and has been appropriately embraced by academic surgical researchers. The use of social media by surgeons has expanded our ability to share hypotheses and published works that lead to higher degrees of collaboration than previously possible. The strengths of social media use for research dissemination in surgery include immediate collaboration on a global scale, faster dissemination of results previously hindered by the publishing process, open peer review from a wider audience, and enhancing the experience of academic meetings. However, social media use for research dissemination is not perfect and is hindered by lack of author verification, public misinterpretation, and lack of standardized enforceable professional guidelines. To combat these potential pitfalls, surgical societies should prioritize specific and intervenable guidelines for surgeons regarding the appropriate use of social media for research dissemination.

 

Biomedical supervisors’ role modeling of open science practices | eLife

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates’ supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19–4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86–11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.

 

WHO releases data.who.int

Posted on by
Reply

“For 75 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been dedicated to promoting health, keeping the world safe and serving the vulnerable. The use of data as the foundation for evidence-based decision-making has been central to WHO’s mission. Today, there are more opportunities than ever to harness the power of data. Yet progress is uneven, with global disparities in capacity for health data collection, communication and access. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the urgent need for the public and policymakers to have access to timely, robust and reliable data.

Recognizing these challenges, WHO is proud to announce a transformative digital platform, data.who.int, a one-stop shop for health data. Data.who.int fulfills WHO’s commitment to provide health data as a public good; it is powered by the ambitious technologies of WHO’s World Health Data Hub, delivering an end-to-end solution for WHO data processes. From collection to use, the World Health Data Hub provides a world class experience leveraging innovative technology to address data challenges….”

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Science research

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open science by contextualizing and communicating research findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Through engagement with and coverage of open research outputs, journalists can help align the ideals of openness, transparency, and accountability with the wider public sphere and its democratic potential. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs in their reporting, what factors motivate or constrain this use, and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the relationship between open science and science journalism. This literature review thus examines journalists’ use of open research outputs, specifically open access publications and preprints. We focus on literature published from 2018 onwards—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—but also include seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that, despite journalists’ potential to act as critical brokers of open access knowledge, their use of open research outputs is hampered by an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. Finally, given the dearth of research in this area, we conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open science and science journalism.

 

Contrasting the open access dissemination of COVID-19 and SDG research | bioRxiv

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This paper examines the extent to which research has been published open access in response to two global threats: COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate change. We compare the accessibility of COVID-19 content versus SDG literature using the Dimensions database between 2000 and 2021, classifying each publication as gold open access, green, bronze, hybrid, or closed. We found that 79.9% of COVID-19 research papers published between January 2020 and December 2021 was open access, with 39.0% published with gold open access licenses. In contrast, just 55.7% of SDG papers were open access in the same time period, with only 36.0% published with gold open access licenses. Papers related to the climate emergency overall had the second-lowest level of open access at just 55.5%. Papers published by the largest for-profit publishers that committed to both the SDG Publishers Compact and climate actions were not predominantly published open access. The paper highlights the need for continued efforts to promote open access publishing to facilitate scientific research and technological development to address global challenges.

 

Citation advantage of COVID-19-related publications – Weishu Liu, Xuping Huangfu, Haifeng Wang, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  With the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists from various disciplines responded quickly to this historical public health emergency. The sudden boom of COVID-19-related papers in a short period of time may bring unexpected influence to some commonly used bibliometric indicators. By a large-scale investigation using Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this brief communication confirms the citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers empirically through the lens of Essential Science Indicators’ highly cited paper. More than 8% of COVID-19-related papers published during 2020 and 2021 were selected as Essential Science Indicators highly cited papers, which was much higher than the set global benchmark value of 1%. The citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers for different Web of Science categories/countries/journal impact factor quartiles was also demonstrated. The distortions of COVID-19-related papers’ citation advantage to some bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factor were discussed at the end of this brief communication.

 

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study | medRxiv

Posted on by
Reply

Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.

Post or Perish? Social Media Strategies for Disseminating Orthopedic Research – Buettmann – Journal of Orthopaedic Research – Wiley Online Library

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Social media usage, particularly Twitter, among scientists in academia has increased in recent years. However, Twitter’s use in scholarly post-publication dissemination of orthopaedic research and musculoskeletal advocacy remains low. To enhance usage of Twitter among musculoskeletal researchers, this article reviews data supporting the professional benefits of using the platform to disseminate scholarly works. Next, we provide a linear workflow for Tweet curation, discuss the importance of data-driven decision making behind tweet curation and posting, and propose new guidelines for professional Twitter usage. Since this workflow may not eliminate all the identified barriers and new institutionalized shifts in policies regarding curation and consumption of social media on Twitter, we also briefly introduce and explore using other social media platforms. We hope this information will be persuasive and compelling to those in the orthopedic research field and be broadly applicable to others in related scientific fields who wish to disseminate findings and engage a public audience on social media. In addition, we encourage the Orthopedic Research Society (ORS) and Journal of Orthopedic Research (JOR) communities to take advantage of the many tools curated by the Wiley editorial office and the ORS social media committee to increase dissemination of their scholarly works online. Twitter and social media can assist in accomplishing our mission of creating a world without musculoskeletal limitations via the timely dissemination of orthopedic information. However, this can only be accomplished if the orthopedic research community has a unified and strong online presence actively engaged in orthopaedic research findings and news.