Retractions are on the rise as a result of a surge in post-publication peer review and an emboldened anonymous whistle-blowing movement. Cognizant that their brand may be damaged as a result of not correcting problematic literature, journals and publishers that are loosely considered to be non-“predatory” are trying to contain the deluge of reports on flawed research that has flooded the biomedical and scientific literature. Within this climate, many studies have started to be retracted and corrected, reinforcing the stigmatization associated with retractions, i.e., having a retraction is considered to be a bad or negative thing. Negative retraction stigmatization has mainly been borne by authors, whereas journals and publishers, except for headline-grabbing reports, have thus far largely avoided this stigma. One of the efforts to destigmatize retractions, at least those for honest errors, has been to try to relabel or rebrand retractions. The terms “self-retraction”, “amendment”, “publisher-caused error”, and others have emerged, but such a diverse lexicon may complicate the publishing landscape more than it resolves the stigma. Seeking euphemistic terms to represent a truth within a toxic context of negative stigmatization only politicizes the issue, and does not resolve it. We suggest that a change is needed in the culture within the biomedical community, to acceptance of critique, and that the culture of shaming needs to be halted in order to achieve this. Only then can academics assume greater responsibility, without the risk of being shamed, of retracting their faulty literature, “honestly”, when they feel that this is needed.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Dental impressions are a common source for transmission of infection between dental clinics and dental labs. Dental impressions can be cross-contaminated by patient’s saliva and blood, which then cross-infect the dental casts poured from the impressions. Objective: To evaluate the current practices of disinfection of dental impressions and their protocols and to assess the knowledge of cross-infection control among dental technicians in Jordan. Method: Dental technicians (n=85) completed a self-administered questionnaire about their practices of disinfection for dental impressions. Results: The distribution of dental technicians was 63.8% fixed prosthodontics, 23.5% removable prosthodontics, 7.8% orthodontics, and 4.8% maxillofacial prosthodontics. The majority of the laboratories did not have instructions related to disinfection of impressions. About 50% of technicians were vaccinated against HBV. About 44.7%, and 42.9% of labs reported that they never disinfect alginate or silicon impressions, respectively. In addition, the majority of lab owners (53%) believed that the dentist should disinfect the impressions before shipping them to dental laboratories, while (45%) believed that disinfecting the impressions is the responsibility of the dental assistant. Moreover, about 38% of this study population reported not using gloves in their labs. In those labs were disinfection was used, 51% used spray disinfection whereas 32.6% used immersion disinfection. The cost of disinfectant was ranked as the most important factor (51.3% of the cases) for the dental technician to choose the disinfectant followed by its effectiveness. Conclusion: Dental technician practices in impression disinfection was not satisfactory, therefore, education programs about impression disinfection are needed.

No abstract

Most departments in any field of science that have a sound academic basis have discussion groups or journal clubs in which pertinent and relevant literature is frequently discussed, as a group. This paper shows how such discussions could help to fortify the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement, and could thus fortify the value of traditional peer review, if their content and conclusions were made known to the wider academic community. Recently, there are some tools available for making PPPR viable, either as signed (PubMed Commons) or anonymous comments (PubPeer), or in a hybrid format (Publons). Thus, limited platforms are currently in place to accommodate and integrate PPPR as a supplement to traditional peer review, allowing for the open and public discussion of what is often publicly-funded science. This paper examines ways in which the opinions that emerge from journal clubs or discussion groups could help to fortify the integrity and reliability of science while increasing its accountability. A culture of reward for good and corrective behavior, rather than a culture that protects silence, would benefit science most.

No abstract

Without peer reviewers, the entire scholarly publishing system as we currently know it would collapse. However, as it currently stands, publishing is an extremely exploitative system, relative to other business models, in which trained and specialized labor is exploited, in the form of editors and peer reviewers, primarily by for-profit publishers, in return for a pat on the back, and a public nod of thanks. This is the “standardized” and “accepted” form for deriving mainstream peer reviewed literature. However, except for open peer review, where reports are open and identities are known, traditional peer review is closed, and the content of peer reports is known only to the authors and editors involved. Publons launched in 2012 as a platform that would offer recognition to peer reviewers for their work. In 2016, Publons rewarded the most productive reviewers with a “Sentinels of Science” award, accompanied by a dismal monetary reward (38 US cents/review) for their efforts. A site aimed at registering pre- and post-publication peer efforts, Publons was perceived as a positive step towards a more transparent peer review system. However, the continued presence of fake peer reviews and a spike in retractions, even among publishers that were Publons sponsors, suggests that perhaps peers may be exploiting Publons to get recognition for superficial or poor peer review. Since all reviews are not public, their content and quality cannot be verified. On 1 June 2017, ClarivateTM Analytics, which owns the journal impact factor—most likely the most gamed non-academic factor in academic publishing—which is a measure of the number of citations of papers in journals, many of which are published by the for-profit publishers—including Publons sponsors—that “employ” free peer reviewers to quality check the literature they then sell for profit, purchased Publons. Touting the purchase as a way to increase transparency, and stamp out fake peer review, some who had supported Publons felt betrayed, even cancelling their Publons accounts immediately when learning of this purchase. Their concerns included the possible “gaming” of peer review as had taken place with the journal impact factor. This commentary examines possible positive and negative aspects of this business transaction, and what it might mean to academics and publishers.