Category Archives: oa.intelligibility

Opening scientific knowledge to debunk myths and lies in human nutrition | SpringerLink

Posted on by
Reply

“However, if OA papers are free of charge and easily available online to everyone, their readability is overly complicated for a wider public due to the usage of both general scientific and technical jargon in writing academic studies [8, 9]. In recent years, following the so-called “Third Mission” (TM), universities and other institutions have started to disseminate scientific results in formats more suitable for the general public….”

What do eels teach about open access, medical education and professional ethics? The inception of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in ancient Rome – Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation

Posted on by
Reply

“In conclusion, Largus offers a dual lesson for the 21st century. In an era when knowledge is often gated behind paywalls, Largus’s Compositiones underscore the importance of providing less privileged healthcare professionals with open access to evidence-based resources. Although the concept of open access is relatively new in medical scholarship and to our knowledge there is no concrete proof of a relevant discourse, the fact the he used colloquial language was already a breakthrough in this regard….”

Generative AI as a Tool for Environmental Health Research Translation | medRxiv

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Generative artificial intelligence, popularized by services like ChatGPT, has been the source of much recent popular attention for publishing health research. Another valuable application is in translating published research studies to readers in non-academic settings. These might include environmental justice communities, mainstream media outlets, and community science groups. Five recently published (2021-2022) open-access, peer-reviewed papers, authored by University of Louisville environmental health investigators and collaborators, were submitted to ChatGPT. The average rating of all summaries of all types across the five different studies ranged between 3 and 5, indicating good overall content quality. ChatGPT’s general summary request was consistently rated lower than all other summary types. Whereas higher ratings of 4 and 5 were assigned to the more synthetic, insight-oriented activities, such as the production of a plain language summaries suitable for an 8th grade reading level and identifying the most important finding and real-world research applications. This is a case where artificial intelligence might help level the playing field, for example by creating accessible insights and enabling the large-scale production of high-quality plain language summaries which would truly bring open access to this scientific information. This possibility, combined with the increasing public policy trends encouraging and demanding free access for research supported with public funds, may alter the role journal publications play in communicating science in society. For the field of environmental health science, no-cost AI technology such as ChatGPT holds the promise to improve research translation, but it must continue to be improved (or improve itself) from its current capability.

 

Plain language summaries: Enabling increased diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing – Rosenberg – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Posted on by
Reply

“Key points

 

Plain language summaries (PLS) are accessible, short, peer-reviewed summaries of scholarly journal articles written in non-technical language.
The aim of PLS is to enable a broader audience of experts and non-experts to understand the original article.
Here, we outline the evidence base for the value and impact of PLS and how they can enable diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing.
PLS can diversify readership and authorship, address information inequity, include typically under-represented stakeholders and provide an accessible route into scholarly literature….”

watershed moment for the BJD: Authors retain their article copyright | British Journal of Dermatology | Oxford Academic

Posted on by
Reply

“I am delighted to confirm that under the terms of our new publishing agreement with OUP, authors of all BJD papers, whether published as open access or not, will retain copyright of their article. Rather than handing over copyright, authors are asked to provide to the BJD an ‘Exclusive licence to publish’ instead. If you don’t believe me, look at the copyright statement at the bottom of the page! …”

Patients at the Heart of the Scientific Dialogue: An Industry Perspective | SpringerLink

Posted on by
Reply

“Pharmaceutical companies need to regularly communicate to patients all essential information about their medicines, especially data from the research studies that were conducted to evaluate the medicine’s benefits and risks. To do that, companies will need to make sure patients have access to and awareness of relevant information. This can be achieved by ensuring medical information is freely available to the reader, and working with publishers to facilitate open access (free) publications. Companies should also help improve patients’ understanding of medical terminology, offer simplified versions of scientific content, and deliver information through various formats (print versus digital, text versus audio versus video) to address different learning styles and literacy levels. This will empower patients with knowledge and improve shared decision-making. It will also be essential for pharmaceutical companies to involve patients in various stages of medicine development, such as getting their input on how the research studies for investigating these medicines are designed and reported to ensure relevant information to patients are well-captured and clear. This should also go in parallel with providing opportunities to elevate the patient voice through patient-partnered research and authorship on topics particularly relevant to them.”

 

SocArXiv Papers | The potential of inclusive and collaborative Open Research processes at the science-policy interface

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Proponents of Open Research often assert that it can support evidence-based policy-making by making scientific outputs more readily available to policy-makers and other policy actors, yet there is little empirical work to support or deny this claim. This paper fills this void by reporting the results of a qualitative study with researchers who regularly work at the science-policy interface. We found that there is little evidence that Open Research products, namely Open Access and open data, which aim at increasing access and transparency, are useful in integrating science into policy-making. Instead, we found that the cognitive accessibility of research outputs is more important than their physical accessibility, and that inclusive and collaborative Open Research processes, like upstream engagement, co-creation and Citizen Science, are most effective at doing so.

 

A practical ‘How-To’ Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology | Research Involvement and Engagement | Full Text

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Background

Peer-reviewed scientific publications and congress abstracts are typically written by scientists for specialist audiences; however, patients and other non-specialists are understandably interested in the potential implications of research and what they may mean for them. Plain language summaries (PLS)—summaries of scientific articles in easy-to-read language—are emerging as a valuable addition to traditional scientific publications. Co-creation of PLS with the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome, but practical guidance on how to achieve this has been lacking.

Methods

Building on the Patient Engagement (PE) Quality Guidance previously developed by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD), a multi-stakeholder working group (WG) of individuals with patient engagement experience and/or expertise in PLS was established to develop further activity-specific guidance. PLS guidance was developed through a stepwise approach that included several rounds of co-creation, public consultation (two rounds), internal review and a final external review. The iterative development process incorporated input from a wide variety of stakeholders (patient representatives, industry members, publishers, researchers, medical communications agencies, and public officials involved in research bodies). Feedback from each step was consolidated by the WG and used for refining the draft guidance. The final draft was then validated through external consultation.

Results

The WG comprised 14 stakeholders with relevant experience in PE and/or PLS. The WG developed a set of 15 ethical principles for PLS development. These include the necessity for objective reporting and the absence of any promotional intent, the need for balanced presentation, the importance of audience focus, the need to apply health literacy principles, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language. The first public consultation yielded 29 responses comprising 478 comments or edits in the shared draft guidance. The second public consultation was an online survey of 14 questions which had 32 respondents. The final ‘How-To’ Guide reflects feedback received and provides a rational, stepwise breakdown of the development of PLS.

Conclusions

The resulting ‘How-To’ Guide is a standalone, practical, ready-to-use tool to support multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS.

Open Science for Non-Specialists: Making Open Science Meaningful Beyond the Scientific Community | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  A major goal of the open science movement is to make more scientific information available to non-specialists, but it has been difficult to meaningfully achieve that goal. In response, this paper argues for two steps: (1) focusing on the scientific content that is most relevant to non-specialist audiences; and (2) packaging that content in meaningful ways for those audiences. The paper uses a case study involving a major environmental health issue (namely, PFAS pollution) to illustrate how the proponents of open science can work with groups like government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and extension programs to implement these two steps.

 

Full article: Putting plain language summaries into perspective

Posted on by
Reply

“Thanks to the open science movement, and especially open access publishing, it is becoming easier for readers outside of large research institutions to access research articles for free. The proportion of research articles that are openly available has been increasing year over year1. This increase in open access has removed one important barrier to accessing research information. However, another key barrier to access is understanding. After all, what is the point of research information being openly available if only a tiny proportion of the people who have access to it can understand the technical language it’s written in? …”

 

Data Policies and Principles

Posted on by
Reply

“Recognizing the crucial role of open and effective data and information exchange to the Belmont Challenge, the Belmont Forum adopted open Data Policy and Principles based on the recommendations from the Community Strategy and Implementation Plan (CSIP) at its 2015 annual meeting of Principals in Oslo, Norway. The policy signals a commitment by funders of global environmental change research to increase access to scientific data, a step widely recognized as essential to making informed decisions in the face of rapid changes affecting the Earth’s environment….

Data should be:

 

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines
Accessible as open data by default, and made available with minimum time delay
Understandable in a way that allows researchers—including those outside the discipline of origin—to use them
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories…

Research data must be:

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines, with data access and use conditions, including licenses, clearly indicated. Data should have appropriate persistent, unique and resolvable identifiers.
Accessible by default, and made available with minimum time delay, except where international and national policies or legislation preclude the sharing of data as Open Data. Data sources should always be cited.
Understandable and interoperable in a way that allows researchers, including those outside the discipline of origin, to use them. Preference should be given to non-proprietary international and community standards via data e-infrastructures that facilitate access, use and interpretation of data. Data must also be reusable and thus require proper contextual information and metadata, including provenance, quality and uncertainty indicators. Provision should be made for multiple languages.
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories with data management policies and plans for all data at the project and institutional levels. Metrics should be exploited to facilitate the ability to measure return on investment, and can be used to implement incentive schemes for researchers, as well as provide measures of data quality.
Supported by a highly skilled workforce and a broad-based training and education curriculum as an integral part of research programs. …”

Guest Post – Towards Standardizing Plain Language Summaries: The Open Pharma Recommendations – The Scholarly Kitchen

Posted on by
Reply

“Plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed medical journal publications are summaries of a piece of published literature that simplify highly-specialized terminology and jargon into language everyone can understand. PLS are intended for everyone engaging with medical research, such as patients, patient advocates, caregivers, healthcare professionals and policymakers. Frequently, they are brief, text-based lay abstracts formatted like, and hosted alongside, the scientific abstract. However, consensus on industry standards for PLS is still in its infancy, so other formats in use across the industry include multi-page visual infographics and digital enhancements, usually hosted in the supplementary materials or on third-party websites….

Why write a PLS?

Open science is a human right. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right freely to […] share in scientific advancement and its benefits”. The concept of open science as it relates to financial availability and open access publishing is already well established, and its principles can be seen in action in the likes of preprints, open source data sets, and open peer review reports, among others….

Accessible open science improves trust and transparency. At a time when public trust in the pharmaceutical industry is low, transparency is more important than ever, and what’s more transparent than sharing accurate and credible research directly with the public, in language they can understand?…

Our recommendations also call for PLS that are directly discoverable and findable instead of being buried in supplementary materials or multiple clicks away on third-party websites. PubMed is one of the most widely-used public databases of medical literature and already has an built-in function for hosting PLS. To be indexed on PubMed, a PLS needs to be text-based, 250 words or less, and tagged accordingly when uploaded by publishers. Therefore, the Open Pharma recommendations advise that PLS should meet these technical requirements. We do recognize, however, that PubMed is not an ideal platform for all stakeholders, and we would welcome future development of a central database for PLS that can match PubMed’s discoverability while providing more options for different content formats, such as infographics and videos to increase understanding and engagement….”

Plain?language summaries: An essential component to promote knowledge translation – Gudi – – International Journal of Clinical Practice – Wiley Online Library

Posted on by

Abstract:  In this era of evidence?based practice, scholarly work such as peer?reviewed scientific publications plays a vital role in policy and decision?making at an individual, organisation and country?level. Alongside being considered an essential means of communicating scholarly work, scientific publications also investigate the specific domains that lack well?established literature and thereby inform scientists and researchers to thrive for the betterment of the publics’ well?being. Thus, the main purpose of articulating the scientific, scholarly work should be to make it understandable and accessible to everyone, including the lay audience. However, oftentimes, researchers overlook the lay summaries while publishing the research findings.

 

 

Introducing the Open Pharma recommendations for multi-stakeholder plain language summaries of publications: now inviting public consultation – Open Pharma – Innovations in medical publishing

Posted on by

“Over the last few months, the Open Pharma Accessibility workstream has been hard at work, drafting our recommendations for the ‘minimum standard’ for multi-stakeholder plain language summaries of publications. These recommendations were the focus of the January 2021 Roundtable, during which we heard feedback on the recommendations from Open Pharma Members, Supporters and key Advisers.

Now, we’re asking for your input! The one-page recommendations document is available to read on our figshare page. If you have any thoughts, questions or comments, or if you just want your voice to be heard, you can email us at OxfordProject@pharmagenesis.com or join the conversation on Twitter. Please make sure to share your insights before the end of the consultation period on 31 March 2021!…”

On COVID-19, cognitive bias, and open access | PNAS

Posted on by

“The scientific literature, with its impenetrable jargon, field-specific methodologies, and assumptions of familiarity with a specific body of knowledge, is, for the most part, written for trained scientist readers. It’s certainly not optimally designed for the casual nonspecialist reader, nor should it be, and correcting biases in occasional readers of the scientific literature has not traditionally been the responsibility of the scientific community. The move toward open access publishing, however, in a way, is making it our responsibility, particularly if the idea is that the general public, having provided the means for federal funding of research, is owed immediate access to the products of that research. Making the scientific literature widely and immediately available probably should bring with it an obligation for making not just the data accessible but every aspect of scientific research more accessible….

One small step toward increasing the accessibility of data might be recognizing and addressing potential cognitive biases in an expanded version of a “significance statement,” an element that is appearing in an increasing number of scientific papers….

Today, instructions to authors specify that the Significance Statement should “explain the significance of the research at a level understandable to an undergraduate-educated scientist outside their field of specialty…..

As open access publication becomes the norm across the publishing landscape, making data more accessible while at the same time anticipating and making a greater effort to correct potential cognitive biases may be among many tools that the scientific community can use to reduce the likelihood of misperceptions that can lead to widespread rejection of policies and recommendations based on solid scientific evidence, a cultural phenomenon that appears to have grown as exponentially as COVID-19 in the United States in 2020….”