Fast news or fake news?: The advantages and the pitfalls of rapid publication through pre-print servers during a pandemic.

Pre-print servers have helped to rapidly publish important information during the COVID-19 pandemic. The downside is the risk of spreading false information or fake news though.

Statistical Analysis Must Improve to Address the Reproducibility Crisis: The ACcess to Transparent Statistics (ACTS) Call to Action.

The ACcess to Transparent Statistics (ACTS) call to action assembles four measures that are rapidly achievable by journals and funding agencies to enhance the quality of statistical reporting. The ACTS call to action is an appeal for concrete actions from institutions that should spearhead the battle for reproducibility.

Toward assessing clinical trial publications for reporting transparency.

OBJECTIVE: To annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal. METHODS: We annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections. RESULTS: We created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.

The need for a worldwide consensus for cell line authentication: Experience implementing a mandatory requirement at the International Journal of Cancer.

Cell lines are used in life science research worldwide as biological surrogates. All cell lines are subject to major limitations when used as research tools, including (i) cross-contamination with other cells cultured in the same laboratory environment and (ii) evolution in vitro that renders a given cell line inappropriate as a surrogate for a specific biological hypothesis. There is ample evidence that cross-contamination or phenotypic drift of cells in culture can generate irreproducible or misleading data. A small number of scientific journals-the International Journal of Cancer being at the forefront-and funding agencies have recently moved forward to ask for obligatory cell line authentication data. The history of implementing such rules by the International Journal of Cancer exemplifies the difficulties encountered when installing mandatory quality measures in life sciences.

Health Research Titles and Guidelines Improve Impact and Article Acceptance Rates.

The peer-reviewed publication of Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Techniques, and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation is the result of a team effort. Our assistant editors-in-chief are a notable part of this team who are specifically credited for, among other contributions, leadership in organizing, creating, and publishing a series of pearls, templates, and checklists for health research authors as well as reviewers, editors, and readers. These articles and tools are available under drop-down menus on the Arthroscopy journal home page. Our series of research pearls concludes with 2 articles on the weighty impact of journal article titles and on instruments to improve research publication quality.

Taking the next steps: Promoting open science and expanding diversity in Law and Human Behavior.

In this editorial, the authors note that steady submission rate and a rejection rate that hovers at 80%, indicates the journal is flourishing and provides them with the fortunate opportunity to make an excellent journal even better. To that end, they describe three initiatives they are working on and explain the changes readers can expect as they begin to implement them in the journal. Specifically, these initiatives include: (1) promoting transparency, openness, and reproducibility in published research; (2) improving author-reviewer fit; and (3) expanding the diversity of journal content and decision makers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Presenting data in such a fashion that they can be used by other scientists.

Data always have an experimental uncertainty, i.e. error limits within which the value is very likely to be found. Although the use of statistics is common as is the use of least squares it remains uncommon to see reported the covariance between parameters for an equation to which data have been fitted. This means that a reader cannot properly calculate the error in an extrapolated or interpolated value. Even when the uncertainties in the least squares parameters are reported, errors calculated without the covariance are often too large and almost always different from the correct values calculated using the full formula. This report will demonstrate the importance of covariance in several examples. Systematic errors are also touched on; solubilities of highly hydrophobic and highly insoluble compounds are very difficult to measure for reasons not widely enough appreciated. Aggregation leading to suspended nanodroplets or nanocrystals can lead to spuriously high apparent solubilities. Another class of systematic errors comes from using an equation which is too simple for a desired extrapolation to a value of interest. The magnitude of this possible error is presented for a number of cases. Extrapolation can lead to a value of some use even though it is very uncertain, but expected uncertainty should be pointed out. Recommendations for good publishing practice are proposed for both authors and editors.

Sharing Your Practice Expertise: Writing Clinical Manuscripts for Publication.

Please do not be afraid of the writing process; we are here to help you through this journey. If you need mentorship through the process, consider looking to an expert or mentor on your unit or at a nearby university. If you do not find the mentorship you are seeking nearby, please let us know. We will put you in contact with 1 of our editorial board members to help guide you through the writing process. We want you to be successful so please have an outline of your idea and the type of manuscript you are planning to write developed. When you contact us, please share your questions openly­there are no "dumb" questions. Please refer often to our author guidelines during the writing process. Details for how best to submit a manuscript for the Clinical Issues in Neonatal Care section are outlined within the author guidelines. Finally, it is important to remember that ANC is a 4-color journal, so please submit full-color tables, graphs, and pictures to enhance the readability of your manuscript. During the editorial process we will do everything we can to facilitate and enhance your work. We will make recommendations that we believe will increase its scholarly application to improving neonatal care and outcomes. Revisions are often requested. After peer review, the section editor and coeditors will review the manuscript well in advance of the production deadline and provide additional feedback as needed. The end goal is excellent presentation of materials for our readers. If you are a reviewer for ANC , the next time you are asked to review a Clinical Issues in Neonatal Care manuscript, please consider the quality of the manuscript in relationship to guiding clinical care at the bedside and make recommendations to improve the manuscript so that staff nurses will best relate to the content. Do not be afraid to make recommendations about missing content or suggestions about ways to enhance the content and make it easier for clinicians to understand. Help us and the authors to increase their creativity and enhance their work. We want ANC to be the best clinical and research journal in neonatal care with articles of all styles that help us to enhance our caregiving and patient outcomes!

Key elements required to publish a good article: consensus among executive editors of Traditional Chinese Medicine and integrative medicine journals - a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore consensus among Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)/integrative medicine (IM) journal executive editors in China regarding: (a) Their perceptions about the differences between papers published in Chinese/English journals; (b) the key elements required for publishing a good quality paper; (c) how editors manage and decide on the manuscripts submitted to their journals. METHODS: A three classic round Delphi was conducted with a purposive sample of TCM/M Chinese journal executive editors. The key themes and items generated from six open ended questions in the first round were redistributed to the editors in two subsequent questionnaire rounds and scored on a five-point Likert scale. Consensus, reliability and stability of responses were assessed between the editors in the same round and between rounds. RESULTS: All ten editors initially agreeing to participate completed the three rounds, provided 60 comments in the first round, relating to 6 themes on: elements of publishing good quality article; differences between Chinese and English published articles; reasons for low quality of Chinese studies; maintaining the journal's good reputation; initiatives and strategies; and differences between Chinese and English versions of the same journal. High levels of consensus were reached for 97% items. Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient for agreement among editors was high in both second and third round and there was a good stability between the two rounds. CONCLUSION: High inter/intra-editor agreement was identified in the differences between TCM/IM research papers published in English and Chinese. Publishing standards and probity are keys in elevating the reputation of research. Editors' perspectives in maintaining and improving quality journal can be viewed as fundamental for editors and researchers in publishing any articles.

New England journal of medicine article evaluating the usefulness of meniscectomy is flawed.

A controversial article was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Sham Surgery for a Degenerative Meniscal Tear" by Sihvonen et al. We believe that readers of this article should be careful about making sweeping generalizations regarding the study findings given several methodologic flaws inherent in the population studied. There are significant concerns regarding the generalizability of these data. The actual study sample group is exceedingly small as compared with the normal volume of meniscal surgery the authors are reported to routinely perform. The authors' definition of a sham procedure must be revisited. The authors' final conclusion that "arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is of no value" is simply not what the study found. We share the concerns that several other leading authorities have recently expressed about the societal implications of this work. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has revolutionized the way we are able to treat symptomatic meniscal pathology. However, this procedure, like all surgical procedures, must be properly indicated to truly benefit our patients.

[Limiting a Medline/PubMed query to the "best" articles using the JCR relative impact factor]. / Limiter une requête Medline/PubMed aux articles publiés dans les revues les plus citées de chaque discipline.

BACKGROUND: Medline/PubMed is the most frequently used medical bibliographic research database. The aim of this study was to propose a new generic method to limit any Medline/PubMed query based on the relative impact factor and the A & B categories of the SIGAPS score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The entire PubMed corpus was used for the feasibility study, then ten frequent diseases in terms of PubMed indexing and the citations of four Nobel prize winners. The relative impact factor (RIF) was calculated by medical specialty defined in Journal Citation Reports. The two queries, which included all the journals in category A (or A OR B), were added to any Medline/PubMed query as a central point of the feasibility study. RESULTS: Limitation using the SIGAPS category A was larger than the when using the Core Clinical Journals (CCJ): 15.65% of PubMed corpus vs 8.64% for CCJ. The response time of this limit applied to the entire PubMed corpus was less than two seconds. For five diseases out of ten, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than with the CCJ. For the four Nobel prize winners, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than the CCJ. CONCLUSION: The feasibility study to apply a new filter based on the relative impact factor on any Medline/PubMed query was positive.

Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals.

PURPOSE: To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected. RESULTS: While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89.7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70.2%) journals, 155 (38.8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22.6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14.8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0.022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57.1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies. CONCLUSIONS: Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations.