Multidisciplinary Bibliographic Databases

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Lilit Ayvazyan,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2013 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.28 No.9

The Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as an Inflammatory Marker in Rheumatic Diseases

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Lilit Ayvazyan,Ulzhan Mukanova,Marlen Yessirkepov,George D. Kitas 대한진단검사의학회 2019 Annals of Laboratory Medicine Vol.39 No.4

The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) has emerged as an informative marker revealing shifts in platelet and lymphocyte counts due to acute inflammatory and prothrombotic states. PLR has been extensively examined in neoplastic diseases accompanied by immune suppression and thrombosis, which can be predicted by combined blood cell counts and their ratios. Several large observational studies have demonstrated the value of shifts in PLR in evaluating the severity of systemic inflammation and predicting infections and other comorbidities, in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The value of PLR as an inflammatory marker increases when its fluctuations are interpreted along with other complementary hematologic indices, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which provides additional information about the disease activity, presence of neutrophilic inflammation, infectious complications, and severe organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus. PLR and NLR have high predictive value in rheumatic diseases with predominantly neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., Behçet disease and familial Mediterranean fever). High PLR, along with elevated platelet count, is potentially useful in diagnosing some systemic vasculitides, particularly giant-cell arteritis. A few longitudinal studies on rheumatic diseases have demonstrated a decrease in PLR in response to anti-inflammatory therapies. The main limitations of PLR studies are preanalytical faults, inadequate standardization of laboratory measurements, and inappropriate subject selection. Nonetheless, accumulating evidence suggests that PLR can provide valuable information to clinicians who encounter multisystem manifestations of rheumatic diseases, which are reflected in shifts in platelet, lymphocyte, neutrophil, or monocyte counts. Interpretation of PLR combined with complementary hematologic indices is advisable to more accurately diagnose inflammatory rheumatic diseases and predict related comorbidities.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Misra Durga Prasanna,Gasparyan Armen Yuri,Zimba Olena,Yessirkepov Marlen,Agarwal Vikas,Kitas George D. 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.50

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Rewarding Peer Reviewers – Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Alexey N. Gerasimov,Alexander A. Voronov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.4

This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards andincentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishersaround the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms forincentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategyof combined rewards and credits for the reviewers’ creative contributions seems a workablesolution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews isone of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networkingplatforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, helpdistinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorialposts.

Systematic and Open Identification of Researchers and Authors: Focus on Open Researcher and Contributor ID

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Nurbek A. Akazhanov,Alexander A. Voronov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2014 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.29 No.11

Unique identifiers of researchers and authors can help all stakeholders of scientificcommunications improve their workflows. There have been several attempts to establishprofessional networks of scholars and list their scholarly achievements on digital platforms. Some of these platforms such as Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge and PubMed aresearched to pick relevant peer reviewers, assess authors’ publication history or choosesuitable candidates for research and academic projects. However, each of these hubs hasits specific applications, limiting the universal use for permanent tagging of researcherprofiles. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative, launched in 2012, isaimed at registering scholarly contributors and averting the persistent ambiguity ofrecorded author names. The ORCID registry is growing fast and integrating with other IDgeneratingplatforms, thereby increasing the functionality of the integrated systems. ORCID identifiers are increasingly used for selecting peer reviewers and acknowledgingvarious scholarly contributions (e.g. , published articles, reviewer comments, conferencepresentations). The initiative offers unique opportunities for transparent disclosures ofauthor contributions and competing interests and improving ethical standards of research,editing, and publishing.

Article-Level Metrics

Gasparyan Armen Yuri,Yessirkepov Marlen,Voronov Alexander A.,Maksaev Artur A.,Kitas George D. 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.11

In the era of digitization and Open Access, article-level metrics are increasingly employed to distinguish influential research works and adjust research management strategies. Tagging individual articles with digital object identifiers allows exposing them to numerous channels of scholarly communication and quantifying related activities. The aim of this article was to overview currently available article-level metrics and highlight their advantages and limitations. Article views and downloads, citations, and social media metrics are increasingly employed by publishers to move away from the dominance and inappropriate use of journal metrics. Quantitative article metrics are complementary to one another and often require qualitative expert evaluations. Expert evaluations may help to avoid manipulations with indiscriminate social media activities that artificially boost altmetrics. Values of article metrics should be interpreted in view of confounders such as patterns of citation and social media activities across countries and academic disciplines.

Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Anna M. Koroleva,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2019 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.34 No.27

The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice

Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Svetlana N. Diyanova,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.8

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall’s list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association’s and other global organizations’ draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Anna M. Koroleva,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2018 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.33 No.35

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and ‘predatory’ sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Bekaidar Nurmashev,Elena E. Udovik,Anna M. Koroleva,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2017 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.32 No.5

This article highlights the issue of wasteful publishing practices that primarily affect non-mainstream science countries and rapidly growing academic disciplines. Numerous start-up open access publishers with soft or nonexistent quality checks and huge commercial interests have created a global crisis in the publishing market. Their publishing practices have been thoroughly examined, leading to the blacklisting of many journals by Jeffrey Beall. However, it appears that some subscription journals are also falling short of adhering to the international recommendations of global editorial associations. Unethical editing agencies that promote their services in non-mainstream science countries create more problems for inexperienced authors. It is suggested to regularly monitor the quality of already indexed journals and upgrade criteria of covering new sources by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, and specialist bibliographic databases. Regional awareness campaigns to inform stakeholders of science communication about the importance of ethical writing, transparency of editing services, and permanent archiving can be also helpful for eradicating unethical publishing practices.