Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications

Introduction: As MEDLINE indexers tag similar articles as duplicates even when journals have not addressed the duplication(s), we sought to determine the reasons behind the tagged duplications, and if the journals had undertaken or had planned to undertake any actions to address them. Materials and methods: On 16 January 2013, we extracted all tagged duplicate publications (DPs), analysed published notices, and then contacted MEDLINE and editors regarding cases unaddressed by notices. For non-respondents, we compared full text of the articles. We followed up the study for the next 5 years to see if any changes occurred. Results: We found 1011 indexed DPs, which represented 555 possible DP cases (in MEDLINE, both the original and the duplicate are assigned a DP tag). Six cases were excluded as we could not obtain their full text. Additional 190 (35%) cases were incorrectly tagged as DPs. Of 359 actual cases of DPs, 200 (54%) were due to publishers’ actions (e.g. identical publications in the same journal), and 159 (46%) due to authors’ actions (e.g. article submission to more than one journal). Of the 359 cases, 185 (52%) were addressed by notices, but only 25 (7%) retracted. Following our notifications, MEDLINE corrected 138 (73%) incorrectly tagged cases, and editors retracted 8 articles. Conclusions: Despite clear policies on how to handle DPs, just half (54%) of the DPs in MEDLINE were addressed by journals and only 9% retracted. Publishers, editors, and indexers need to develop and implement standards for better correction of duplicate published records

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus. Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%). Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications

Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies: validity and reliability of the Croatian version

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) in patients with mental illness in Croatia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following translation, back-translation, and pilot testing, the Croatian version of DIGS (CRO-DIGS) was administered to a total of 150 inpatients and outpatients diagnosed at the Clinical Hospital in Split with bipolar and major depressive disorder (n=56), schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (n=62), and alcohol dependence or use disorders (n=32). Initial testing was performed independently by one interviewer and one observer blinded to the diagnosis, and a retest was performed after 8 weeks by a third examiner. RESULTS: The validity of CRO-DIGS was high (κ=0.916), with an excellent inter-rater (κ=0.824) reliability, especially for bipolar disorder (κ=0.956). Following an 8 week test-retest interval, the reliability for all diagnoses was found to be excellent (κ=0.843). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown excellent validity and reliability of the Croatian version of DIGS, making it a promising instrument to assess mental illness of patients. The development of a valid and reliable diagnostic tool such as the CRO-DIGS will considerably advance the scientific communities' ability to carry out genetic studies of psychiatric illness in the region

Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer- review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists’ attitudes and their open science practices

The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats

INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS IN BIOMEDICINE

Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity.Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity

INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS IN BIOMEDICINE

Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity.Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity

INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS IN BIOMEDICINE

Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity.Introduction: Science pertains to be self-critical, self-correcting, and ultimately replicable. As 1.7% scientists admitted fabrication or modification of data, and instances of authorship, citation, publication and peer review manipulations have been discovered, we sought to explore the integrity of biomedical publications, especially regarding authorship, nonpublication and means of reducing dissemination bias. Methods: Using three observational studies we analyzed: a) answers to the question: “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”; b) funding, study type and differences between research presented at peer review conferences and their subsequent publication; c) opinions and experiences of clinical trialists and systematic reviewers regarding dissemination bias. Results: Only 54% of authors in our first study satisfied international authorship criteria. We found differences in number and byline of authors in 44% cases in our second study, as well as 39% of non-publication between research presentation and full publication. In our third study, we confirmed the non-publication rate (36%), and showed that authors regard current publication practices as the main culprits for today’s state of science. Conclusions: Our results indicate that current authorship criteria and publication practices in biomedicine need to be revised and restructured if science is to preserve its integrity

Professional achievements in medicine: Too many unresolved questions

From pre-enrollment assessments, through medical education andpost-graduate training, medical schools are trying to educate andfacilitate the development of their students so that they become exemplary experts in their future fields. Yet despite the long history of medical education, scientific research has failed to provide correlations between medical schools’ education processes and achievements of their students. Among the greatest obstacles for this is the primary definition of achievement, and, subsequently, its characteristics and measurement. In this review we present current findings related to medical education, discuss their implications and provide suggestions for medical schools on how to get the best out of their students while facilitating their personal growth

Association of trait and specific hopes: cross sectional study on students and workers of health professions in Split, Croatia

Introduction. Hope (hoping) is most commonly assessed as a dispositional trait and associated with quality of life, self-care agency and non-attempts of suicide. However, little research has been conducted on hoping for specific events.Materials and Methods. We distributed a survey consisting of Integrative Hope Scale (IHS) and visual analogue scales on which respondents could declare their levels (intensity) of hope for specific events, to all first year health students enrolled at the University Department of Health Studies, Split, Croatia in 2011/2012, as well as to working health professionals attending a nursing conference in April 2012.Results. A total of 161 (89.4%) students and 88 (89.8%) working health professionals returned the completed questionnaires. We found high trait hope scores of students and working health professionals (Md = 111, 95% CI [109–113] vs. Md = 115, 95% CI [112–119]; U = 5,353, P = 0.065), and weak to moderate correlations of trait and specific hopes (r = 0.18–0.48, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient). Students and workers reported 31 different things they hoped for most in life, of which the most prevalent were being healthy and happy. There was very little agreement between participants’ reported influence of the four factors compromising the trait hope (self-confidence, ambition, optimism, and social support) on their specific hopes.Conclusions. Our findings, while strengthening the validity of hope as a trait, indicate that specific hopes of individuals are moderated by factors not captured by the IHS trait scale. Further research should explore specific hoping in detail, as well as the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing specific or generalized hoping