Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Ranking the community psychology research output of institutions and authors: A new system of evaluating the field.

There have been multiple efforts to evaluate the contributions of the field of Community Psychology, and one of the more popular methods has involved gathering citations and articles published in Community Psychology journals. In recent years, several sites have gathered citation analysis and article publication rates so that it is now relatively easy to summarize settings and scholar rankings. In the current study, articles published in the two major journals of the field of Community Psychology over the past five decades were evaluated for these publications and citations. Findings indicated that several of the settings with highest publication and citation rates have not developed Community Psychology graduate programs, thus indicating that many publishing authors are in settings without formal graduate programs in Community Psychology. The benefits and limitations of this method of ranking programs and individuals are reviewed.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. METHODS: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. RESULTS: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time.

Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes1,2, wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, 'stand on the shoulders of giants'3-7. Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances8,9. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields10,11. Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric-the CD index12-that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics1,13-17. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the 'shoulders of giants' view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.

The trends for the "trend toward significance" in the pediatric literature.

Purpose This study is to examine whether the term "trend toward statistical significance" is used to describe statistically nonsignificant results in biomedical literature. We examined articles published in five high-impact pediatric journals, including The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, The Journal of Pediatrics, Early Human Development, Frontiers in Pediatrics, and BMC Pediatrics to identify manuscripts where a "trend" was used to describe a statistically nonsignificant result, from January 2020 to December 2021, and, furthermore, for The Journal of Pediatrics, Early Human Development, and BMC Pediatrics from January 2010 to December 2011. We detected that a "trend toward significance" was used to describe a statistically nonsignificant result at least once in 146 articles (2.7%) during the period between 2020 and 2021 and in 97 articles (4.0%) during the period between 2010 and 2011. We found no significant difference in the proportion of published articles with inappropriate use of "trend" across journals belonging to the first quartile of impact compared to the second quartile or across journals publishing under the subscription model or open access policy compared to journals publishing solely under the open access policy, in any period. The overall proportion of the inappropriate use of "trend" declined significantly between 2010 and 2011 to 2020 and 2021 (p = 0.002, RR 0.66 95% CI 0.51-0.86). CONCLUSION: "Trend" statements were sporadically used to describe statistically nonsignificant results across pediatric literature. The inappropriate use of "trend" to describe almost significant differences could be misleading, and "trend" should be reserved only when a specific statistical test for trend has been performed, or in relation to appropriate scientific definitions. WHAT IS KNOWN: •Previously, researchers have reported inappropriate use of "trend" in articles across anaesthesia or major oncology journals. •In many cases, hypothesized results that are close but not lower than the statistical significance threshold are emphasized as "almost" significant. WHAT IS NEW: •"Trend" statements were sporadically used to describe statistically nonsignificant results across pediatric literature. •Inappropriate use of  "trend" was similar in journals with a subscription model compared to those having an open access policy and decreased within a 10-year period.